Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

HUDGINS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 13-11602. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20140709a18 Visitors: 1
Filed: Jul. 08, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 08, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SEAN F. COX, District Judge. Plaintiff Marvin Hudgins ("Plaintiff") brought this action challenging the Commissioner's unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's claim for a period of disability, for disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income benefits. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Charles Binder for determination of all non-dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and Report and Recommendation pursuant to
More

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SEAN F. COX, District Judge.

Plaintiff Marvin Hudgins ("Plaintiff") brought this action challenging the Commissioner's unfavorable decision denying Plaintiff's claim for a period of disability, for disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income benefits. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Charles Binder for determination of all non-dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Report and Recommendation pursuant to § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C).

Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued on June 16, 2014, Magistrate Judge Binder recommended that this Court: 1) Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; and 2) Grant the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, affirming the findings and conclusions of the Commissioner.

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a matter by a Magistrate Judge must filed objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R. "The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made." Id.

The time for filing objections to the R&R has expired and the docket reflects that neither party has filed objections to the R&R.

The Court hereby ADOPTS the June 16, 2014, R&R. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and that the Commissioner's findings and conclusions are AFFIRMED.

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