Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

WHEELER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 14-12540. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20150918h47 Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2015
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MARIANNE O. BATTANI , District Judge . Plaintiff Phillip Ray Wheeler brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g), challenging the final decision of the Commissioner denying the application for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff filed the claim on March 2, 2012, alleging a disability onset date
More

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Phillip Ray Wheeler brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the final decision of the Commissioner denying the application for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff filed the claim on March 2, 2012, alleging a disability onset date of January 12, 2012. In his Decision, dated February 21, 2013, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled.

After the Appeals Council denied review, Wheeler timely filed this action for judicial review of the Commissioner's decision. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. In a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") dated August 14, 2015, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk recommended that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied and that Plaintiff's motion be granted. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the decision denying benefits be reversed and this matter be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the R&R.

In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that objections to the R&R needed to be filed within fourteen days of service and that a party's failure to file objections would waive any further right of appeal. (Doc. No. 17 at 27-28). Neither party filed an objection. Moreover, this Court agrees with the thorough analysis contained in the R&R.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings and consideration consistent with the Report and Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer