Filed: Feb. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #14), (2) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #15), AND (3) REMANDING THIS ACTION FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . In this action, Plaintiff Kenyatta Rogers challenges the denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act. ( See Compl., ECF #1.) Rogers and Defendant Commissioner of So
Summary: ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #14), (2) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #15), AND (3) REMANDING THIS ACTION FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . In this action, Plaintiff Kenyatta Rogers challenges the denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act. ( See Compl., ECF #1.) Rogers and Defendant Commissioner of Soc..
More
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #14), (2) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #15), AND (3) REMANDING THIS ACTION FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.
In this action, Plaintiff Kenyatta Rogers challenges the denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Rogers and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security have now filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (See ECF ## 14, 15.)
On January 7, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court grant Rogers' motion, deny the Commissioner's motion, and remand this action to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings (the "R&R"). (See ECF #17.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review of her recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id. at Pg. ID 668.)
The Commissioner has informed the Court that she will not be filing any objections to the R&R. (See ECF #19.) The failure to object to an R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). In addition, the failure to file objections to an R&R waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant Rogers' Motion for Summary Judgment and deny the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Rogers' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #14) is GRANTED, (2) the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #15) is DENIED, and (3) this action is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R and this order.
