Edwards v. Social Security, Commissioner of
ORDER Adopting the 17 Report and Recommendation, Denying Plaintiff's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment, Granting Defendant's 16 Motion for Summary Judgment, and Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
DARRELL T EDWARDS,
Case No. 15-cv-11560
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER
Plaintiff Darrell T. Edwards filed an application for Supplemental Security Income on
March 13, 2012, alleging a disability onset date of January 1, 2010. After his claim was initially
denied Plaintiff timely requested an administrative hearing, which was held on November 19,
2013. On December 23, 2013 the ALJ issued a written decision finding that Plaintiff was not
disabled under the Social Security Act. That decision became final when the Appeals Council
denied Plaintiff’s request for review. Plaintiff then appealed to this Court on April 30, 2015. See
Compl., ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff Edwards filed a motion for summary judgment on July 15, 2016. ECF No. 14.
Defendant Commissioner then filed a motion for summary judgment on September 9, 2016. ECF
No. 16. On January 31, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis issued a report and
recommendation, concluding that the ALJ’s determination that Edwards was not disabled was
supported by substantial evidence. ECF No. 17. In so concluding, the magistrate judge found
that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff did not have a condition that
met or equaled Listing 12.04 (Affective Disorder). The magistrate judge therefore recommended
that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied, Defendant Commissioner’s motion for
summary judgment be granted, and the decision of the ALJ be affirmed.
Although the magistrate judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action
could object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the
report, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections. The election not to file objections to
the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and
recommendation waives any further right to appeal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
ECF No. 17, is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Edwards’s motion for summary judgment, ECF
No. 14, is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment,
ECF No. 16, is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: February 22, 2017
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on February 22, 2017.
s/Kelly Winslow for
MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?