Court Opinion

ID: 2972560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-22 16:50:53.779482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:31:03.649555
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
 

  On May 17, 1993, Plaintiff Frank Siedlecki applied for disability insurance benefits. The Commissioner of Social Security ultimately upheld the decision by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to deny Siedlecki’s insurance application. Subsequently, on February 19, 1997, Siedlecki filed a civil appeal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
 

  On April 14, 1999, District Court Judge Donald Nugent issued an Opinion in which he reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Social Security for consideration of testimony from a vocational expert. Pursuant to the district court’s Order, ALJ Allan Ramsay, Jr. held a hearing at which Siedlecki testified along with a medical expert and a vocational expert. Judge Ramsay concluded • that Siedlecki was not entitled to disability benefits, explicitly because the vocational expert testified that Siedlecki could perform a significant number of sedentary jobs.
 

  Siedlecki again sought judicial review of this decision. On March 4, 2004, Magistrate Judge James Gallas recommended that the district court affirm the Commissioner’s final decision. The Magistrate Judge found that, “while the ALJ may not have fulfilled the spirit of Judge Nugent’s decision, the ALJ did fulfill it to the letter.” On April 26, 2004, Judge Nugent adopted Magistrate Judge Gallas’s recom
   
   *699
   
  mendation that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed.
 

  We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Upon reviewing the opinion and order issued by District Court Judge Donald Nu-gent in this case, we feel that the issuance of a detailed opinion by the court would be would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we adopt the reasoning and holding of the district court in its opinion dated April 26, 2004, and AFFIRM its decision.