Filed: Aug. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 24, 2018
Summary: ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #19), (2) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #20), AND (3) REMANDING THIS ACTION FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . In this action, Plaintiff John Charles Michael, Jr. challenges the denial of his application for supplemental Social Security income benefits. ( See Compl., ECF #1.) Michael and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security have now filed crossmotions for s
Summary: ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #19), (2) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #20), AND (3) REMANDING THIS ACTION FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . In this action, Plaintiff John Charles Michael, Jr. challenges the denial of his application for supplemental Social Security income benefits. ( See Compl., ECF #1.) Michael and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security have now filed crossmotions for su..
More
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #19), (2) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #20), AND (3) REMANDING THIS ACTION FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.
In this action, Plaintiff John Charles Michael, Jr. challenges the denial of his application for supplemental Social Security income benefits. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Michael and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security have now filed crossmotions for summary judgment. (See ECF ## 19, 20.)
On August 3, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Court grant Michael's motion, deny the Commissioner's motion, and remand this action to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings (the "R&R"). (See ECF #17.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review of his recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id. at Pg. ID 523-24.)
The Commissioner has not filed any objections to the R&R. The failure to object to an R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). In addition, the failure to file objections to an R&R waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, because the Commissioner has failed to file any objections to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant Michael's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Michael's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #14) is GRANTED, (2) the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #19) is DENIED, and (3) this action is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R and this order.
