Filed: Jun. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 12, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 20) AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO A REMAND (Doc. 13) AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 18) AND REMANDING MATTER FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AVERN COHN, District Judge. I. This is a Social Security case. Plaintiff Suzanne Renee Billotti, proceeding pro se, appeals from the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) that she is not disabled and therefore
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 20) AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO A REMAND (Doc. 13) AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 18) AND REMANDING MATTER FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AVERN COHN, District Judge. I. This is a Social Security case. Plaintiff Suzanne Renee Billotti, proceeding pro se, appeals from the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) that she is not disabled and therefore ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 20) AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO A REMAND (Doc. 13) AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 18) AND REMANDING MATTER FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
AVERN COHN, District Judge.
I.
This is a Social Security case. Plaintiff Suzanne Renee Billotti, proceeding pro se, appeals from the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) that she is not disabled and therefore not entitled to disability insurance benefits. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff and the Commissioner filed cross motions for summary judgment.
On May 19, 2014, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR), recommending that plaintiff's motion be granted to the extent that the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings and that the Commissioner's motion be denied. Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends that the matter be remanded for further administrative proceedings under sentence four1 because of "discrepancies between the hypothetical question forming the basis of the [Vocational Expert's] job testimony and the [plaintiff's residual functional capacity]." MJRR at p. 16. These discrepancies make it unclear whether plaintiff is capable of light work or limited to sedentary work. See MJRR at pp. 16-18.
II.
Neither party has filed objections to the MJRR and the time for filing objections has passed. The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge's report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motions. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
However, the Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees with the magistrate judge. Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Commissioner's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
This matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with the MJRR.
SO ORDERED.
