Adams v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 25

ORDER Adopting 24 Report and Recommendation, Granting Commissioner's 23 Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying Plaintiff's 19 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
NORTHERN DIVISION
EDNA ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-11425
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

SOCIAL SECURITY, COMMISSIONER OF,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING
COMMISSONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE
COMMISSIONER
On July 24, 2012, Edna Adams applied for disability insurance benefits under the Social
Security Act. In proceedings before the Social Security Administration, the Administrative Law
Judge found that Adams was not disabled. The Appeals Council denied review. On April 20,
2016, Adams filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision.
ECF No. 1. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand. ECF No. 3. On January
3, 2017, Adams filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 19. On March 3, 2017, the
Commissioner filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 23. Several weeks later, Judge
Grand issued a report recommending that the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment be
granted and Adam’s motion for summary judgment be denied. ECF No. 24. Judge Grand found
that substantial evidence in the record supported the ALJ’s assessments of Adam’s medical
ailments and the ALJ’s allocation of little weight to the opinion of a consultative examining
physician. Judge Grand further found that the ALJ did not give the Vocational Expert an

improper hypothetical while obtaining testimony regarding jobs Adams was capable of
performing.
Although the Magistrate Judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may
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. 24, is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment,
ECF No. 23, is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Adam’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No.
19, is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision is
AFFIRMED.

Dated: May 9, 2017

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge

-2-

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 May 9, 2017.
s/Kelly Winslow for
MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager

-3-