CREAGER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12-12852. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20130826792
Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2013
Summary: ORDER JULIAN ABELE COOK, Jr., District Judge. This case involves a complaint by the Plaintiff, Teena Creager, 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 David R. Grand for eval
Summary: ORDER JULIAN ABELE COOK, Jr., District Judge. This case involves a complaint by the Plaintiff, Teena Creager, 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 David R. Grand for evalu..
More
ORDER
JULIAN ABELE COOK, Jr., District Judge.
This case involves a complaint by the Plaintiff, Teena Creager, 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 David R. Grand for evaluation. In a report on June 21, 2013, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court (1) deny the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, (2) grant Creager's motion for summary judgment to the extent that it seeks remand, but deny it to the extent that it seeks reversal and an automatic award of benefits, and (3) remand for further consideration, pursuant to sentence six 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
