CIPOELEWSKI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 13-cv-12368. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20140815m90
Visitors: 12
Filed: Aug. 13, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 13, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [13], GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [11], AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [8] LAURIE J. MICHELSON, District Judge. Before the Court is Magistrate Judge David R. Grand's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 13, R&R) to Grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 11) and Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 8). At the conclusion of his report, the Magistrate Judge notified the parties that they were
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [13], GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [11], AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [8] LAURIE J. MICHELSON, District Judge. Before the Court is Magistrate Judge David R. Grand's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 13, R&R) to Grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 11) and Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 8). At the conclusion of his report, the Magistrate Judge notified the parties that they were r..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [13], GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [11], AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [8]
LAURIE J. MICHELSON, District Judge.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge David R. Grand's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 13, R&R) to Grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 11) and Deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 8). At the conclusion of his report, the Magistrate Judge notified the parties that they were required to file any objections within 14 days of service, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.1(d), and that "[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal." (R&R at 18.) No party has filed timely objections. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and there being no timely objections, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as the findings and conclusions of this Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). It follows that the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 11) and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 8).
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
