UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

MACHELLE C.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-268

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 33)

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate 

Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on October 19, 2021, submitted a 

Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33). Plaintiff filed on October 21, 2021. (Doc. 34). 

Plaintiff also filed a Notice, which may be considered a supplement to her objections, on 

November 9, 2021. (Doc. 35).

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing and careful review of 

Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33) 

should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety.

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/14/22 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 169
2

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying 

Plaintiff’s motions to reopen case (Docs. 31, 32). The motions were construed as 

motions to alter or amend the judgment remanding this case to the Commissioner in 

accordance with the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 24). This is the second 

time Plaintiff has sought to amend the judgment. (See Doc. 25).

Construing the objections liberally, Plaintiff argues that: (1) the Court should not 

have remanded her case because of Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to the 

Commissioner’s motion for remand (Doc. 19) or the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 21) recommending remand should have been be excused because 

she is proceeding pro se; and (2) the Court should consider her case because she is 

eligible for Social Security Disability Insurance. (Docs. 34, 35). The Court has already 

considered these same arguments when adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation over Plaintiff’s objections. (See Docs. 27, 28, 29).1

 Thus, Plaintiff’s 

objections are not well-taken and overruled.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33) is hereby ADOPTED; 

2. Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 34, 35) are OVERRULED;

3. Plaintiff’s motions to reopen case (Docs. 31, 32) are DENIED; and,

4. The Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), an appeal of this 

Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore Plaintiff is denied 

1 Even with Plaintiff’s pro se status, the objections reiterate arguments previously presented (see

Docs. 25, 26, 28, 31, 32), thus are “not sufficient to alert the court to the alleged errors on the 

part of the magistrate judge.” Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004); see 

also Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). 

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/14/22 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 170
3 

leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to 

proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. 

Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. 

United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

9/14/2022 s/Timothy S. Black

Case: 1:18-cv-00268-TSB-KLL Doc #: 36 Filed: 09/14/22 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 171