Filed: Aug. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2013
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER, AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT DAVID M. LAWSON, District Judge. The plaintiff filed the present action on August 27, 2013 seeking review of the Commissioner's decision denying the plaintiffs' application for supplemental security income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. On August 28, 2012, the case
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER, AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT DAVID M. LAWSON, District Judge. The plaintiff filed the present action on August 27, 2013 seeking review of the Commissioner's decision denying the plaintiffs' application for supplemental security income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. On August 28, 2012, the case ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER, AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT
DAVID M. LAWSON, District Judge.
The plaintiff filed the present action on August 27, 2013 seeking review of the Commissioner's decision denying the plaintiffs' application for supplemental security income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. On August 28, 2012, the case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(b)(3). Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment to reverse the decision of the Commissioner and the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment to affirm the decision of the Commissioner. Presently before the Court is the report issued on June 10, 2013 by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), recommending that the defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment be denied, and the findings of the Commissioner be affirmed. Although the magistrate judge's report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, no objections have been filed thus far. The parties' failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge's report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation [dkt. #16] is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [dkt. #12] is DENIED and the defendant's motion for summary judgment [dkt. #13] is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that the findings of the Commissioner are AFFIRMED.
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED.
