JOHNSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12-13268. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20130910c54
Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 09, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 09, 2013
Summary: ORDER JULIAN ABELE COOK, Jr., District Judge. This case involves a complaint by the Plaintiff, Ramu Johnson, who, in relying upon the authority of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), has asked this Court to review a final decision by the Defendant, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"). The parties thereafter filed motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, both of which were forwarded by the Court to Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk for e
Summary: ORDER JULIAN ABELE COOK, Jr., District Judge. This case involves a complaint by the Plaintiff, Ramu Johnson, who, in relying upon the authority of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), has asked this Court to review a final decision by the Defendant, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"). The parties thereafter filed motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, both of which were forwarded by the Court to Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk for ev..
More
ORDER
JULIAN ABELE COOK, Jr., District Judge.
This case involves a complaint by the Plaintiff, Ramu Johnson, who, in relying upon the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), has asked this Court to review a final decision by the Defendant, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"). The parties thereafter filed motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, both of which were forwarded by the Court to Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk for evaluation. In a report on August 14, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court (1) grant in part the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment; (2) grant in part Johnson's motion for summary judgment; (3) reverse in part the findings of the Commissioner; and (4) remand this matter for further consideration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). As of this date, neither party has expressed any objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. The period of time for filing objections having now expired, this Court adopts the report, including the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
