Beatty v. Social Security

Filing 22

ORDER Adopting 21 Report and Recommendation, Denying Commissioner's 19 Motion for Summary Judgment, Granting in Part Plaintiff's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment and Remanding for Further PRoceedings. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION TAMMY S BEATTY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-cv-13533 Honorable Thomas L. Ludington Magistrate Judge David R. Grand SOCIAL SECURITY, COMMISSIONER OF, Defendants. __________________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING COMMISSONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS Plaintiff Tammy S. Beatty filed an application for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act on January 28, 2014. Her application was denied, and Beatty sought an administrative hearing. After the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge issued a written decision concluding that Beatty was not disabled under the Act. The Appeals Council denied review. On October 1, 2016, Beatty 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. Both parties have since filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 14, 19. On October 11, 2017, Judge Grand issued a report recommending that Beatty’s motion for summary judgment be granted in part,1 the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment be denied, and this matter be remanded. ECF No. 21. Specifically, Judge Grand found that the ALJ’s description 1 Judge Grand recommends granting Beatty’s motion for summary judgment to the extent she seeks remand and denying it to the extent she seeks an award of benefits. of Beatty’s foot conditions was not supported by substantial evidence and improperly discounted Beatty’s credibility. 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. 21, is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 19, is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Beatty’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED in part. It is further ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings under Sentence Four consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. Dated: October 31, 2017 s/Thomas L. Ludington THOMAS L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge 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 October 31, 2017. s/Kelly Winslow KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager -2-

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?