VILLARREAL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 2:13-cv-15197. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20141202a82
Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 30, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER MARIANNE O. BATTANI, District Judge. Plaintiff John Villarreal filed an appeal of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Grand in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Subse
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER MARIANNE O. BATTANI, District Judge. Plaintiff John Villarreal filed an appeal of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Grand in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Subseq..
More
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER
MARIANNE O. BATTANI, District Judge.
Plaintiff John Villarreal filed an appeal of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Grand in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Subsequently, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. After review, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending this Court affirm the decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits because the decision was supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. 13 at 12-13).
In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that objections to the R&R must be filed within "fourteen (14) days of service" and a "[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal." (Id.). Neither party filed objections.
Because no objections were filed in this case, the parties waived their right to de novo review and appeal. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R, GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment, DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
