Robinson v. BERRYHILL ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LEANDER ROBINSON, Plaintiff, Case No. 18-cv-13263 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. __________________________________________________________________/ ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 10), (2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 12), AND (3) REMANDING THIS ACTION FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS In this action, Plaintiff Leander Robinson challenges the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits under the Social Security Act. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Robinson and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security have now filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (See Motions, ECF Nos. 10, 12.) On October 24, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Court grant Robinson’s motion in part, deny the Commissioner’s motion, and remand this action to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 13.) 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., PageID.605.) 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 Robinson’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part and deny the Commissioner’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Robinson’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED IN PART as set forth in the R&R, (2) the Commissioner’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 12) is DENIED, and (3) this action is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R and this order. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: December 9, 2019 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on December 9, 2019, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (810) 341-9764