Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

LINEBARGER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 14-14501. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20160115t39 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 14, 2016
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS MARIANNE O. BATTANI , District Judge . Plaintiff Lisa Linebarger brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g), challenging the final decision of the Commissioner denying her applications for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff filed the claim on May 5, 2008, alleging disability since that date. The cas
More

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff Lisa Linebarger brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the final decision of the Commissioner denying her applications for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff filed the claim on May 5, 2008, alleging disability since that date. The case was before this Court for review in 2012 and remanded for further proceedings.

After remand, a second administrative hearing was held, and in her Decision, dated November 18, 2013, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review, and Linebarger timely filed this action for judicial review of the Commissioner's decision. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

In a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") dated October 9, 2015, Magistrate Judge Grand recommended that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied and that Plaintiff's motion be granted to the extent it seeks remand and denied to the extent it seeks an award of benefits. In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that objections to the R&R needed to be filed within 14 days of service and that a party's failure to file objections would waive any further right of appeal. (Doc. No. 17 at 21). 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 IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and REMANDS this matter further proceedings consistent with the R&R pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

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