Dunbar v. Commissioner of Social Security, 18-cv-13209. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20200123b89
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 22, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 22, 2020
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MARIANNE O. BATTANI , District Judge . Plaintiff Devon Dunell Dunbar brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g), challenging the final decision of the Commissioner denying his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen pursuant to
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MARIANNE O. BATTANI , District Judge . Plaintiff Devon Dunell Dunbar brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g), challenging the final decision of the Commissioner denying his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen pursuant to ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MARIANNE O. BATTANI, District Judge.
Plaintiff Devon Dunell Dunbar brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the final decision of the Commissioner denying his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) to review the final decision.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") dated September 23, 2019, Magistrate Judge Whalen recommended that Defendant's motion be granted and that Plaintiff's motion be denied. In his R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that objections to the R&R needed to be filed within 14 days of service and that a party's failure to file objections would waive any further right of appeal. (ECF No. 20 at 17).
Neither party filed an objection. Because no objection has been filed in this case, the parties waived their right to de novo review and appeal. Moreover, this Court agrees with the thorough analysis contained in the R&R.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle