Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

GRIFFITH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12-cv-10575. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20130816a56 Visitors: 13
Filed: Aug. 13, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 13, 2013
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION SEAN F. COX, District Judge. On or around February 9, 2012, Wendy Lee Griffith ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint, appealing from the denial of her application for social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income by the Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant"). (Docket Entry No. 1.) The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Docket Entry Nos. 13, 18.) This Court referred this matter to Magist
More

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

SEAN F. COX, District Judge.

On or around February 9, 2012, Wendy Lee Griffith ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint, appealing from the denial of her application for social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income by the Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant"). (Docket Entry No. 1.) The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Docket Entry Nos. 13, 18.) This Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder for a report and recommendation. (Docket Entry No. 3.)

On July 17, 2013, Magistrate Judge Binder filed his Report and Recommendation ("the R&R"), recommending that the Court DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and AFFIRM the findings of the Commissioner. (Docket Entry No. 19, at 1, 12.)

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a matter by a Magistrate Judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R.

The time for filing objections to the R&R has expired and the docket reflects that neither party has filed any objections to the R&R.

The Court finds that the issues have been adequately presented in the parties' briefs and that oral argument would not significantly aid the decision making process. See Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan. The Court therefore orders that the motion will be decided on the briefs.

The Court hereby ADOPTS the July 17, 2013, R&R. For the reasons mentioned in the R&R, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and the findings of the Commissioner are

AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer