Lowery v. Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER Adopting 16 Report and Recommendation, Granting Defendant's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying Plaintiff's 12 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
SHANICE LOWERY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case. No. 17-12348
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
__________________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE
COMMISSIONER
Plaintiff Lowery filed applications for DIB and SSI on October 18, 2012. (Tr. 125). On
May 9, 2014, ALJ Janet Alaga-Gadigian issued a written decision denying those applications.
(Tr. 125-32). On November 28, 2014, the Appeals Council denied review. (Tr. 136-41). Lowery
then filed new applications for DIB and SSI on January 20, 2015, alleging disability as of
November 1, 2010. (Tr. 225-30). After Lowery’s January 2015 applications for SSI and DIB
were denied at the initial level on April 16, 2015 (Tr. 170-73, 180-83), she timely requested an
administrative hearing, which was held on September 9, 2016, before ALJ Dawn Gruenburg (Tr.
54-78). On November 23, 2016, the ALJ issued a written decision finding that Lowery is not
disabled under the Act. (Tr. 13-21). On June 30, 2017, the Appeals Council denied review. (Tr.
1-6). Lowery timely filed for judicial review of the final decision on July 19, 2017. ECF No. 1.
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge David Grand. ECF No. 3. The parties filed cross
motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 12, 14.

On May 29, 2018, Judge Grand issued a report finding that the ALJ’S decision that
Plaintiff is not disabled was supported by substantial evidence. ECF No. 16. Judge Grand
recommended that the Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, deny Plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment, and affirm the decision of the Commissioner.
Although the magistrate judge’s report explicitly states that the parties to this action
could object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the
report, neither party has 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. 16, is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 12, is
DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, is
GRANTED
It is further ORDERED that the findings of the Commissioner are AFFIRMED.
It is further ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: June 19, 2018

-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 June 19, 2018.
s/Kelly Winslow
KELLY WINSLOW, Case Manager

-3-