Howard v. Berryhill

Filing 27

ORDER Adopting 24 Report and Recommendation, Granting Defendant'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
ETHAN HOWARD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case. No. 18-10522
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
Magistrate Judge Anthony Patti

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
On September 18, 2014, an application for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits
was protectively filed on behalf of Plaintiff, then a minor, alleging disability beginning September
1, 2004. (R. at 147-52.) In his disability report, he alleges that he is disabled due to attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), mood disorder and depression. (R. at 169.) His application was
denied on February 18, 2015. (R. at 79.) On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff requested a hearing by an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (R. at 84.) On January 12, 2017, ALJ John Loughlin held a
hearing, at which Plaintiff and his mother testified. (R. at 31-70.) ALJ Loughlin issued an opinion
on March 14, 2017, which determined that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the
Social Security Act. (R. at 15-27.) On April 18, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a request for review of
the hearing decision/order. (R. at 144-146.) However, on December 11, 2017, the Appeals Council
denied Plaintiff’s request for review. (R. at 1-6.) Thus, ALJ Loughlin’s decision became the
Commissioner’s final decision. Plaintiff timely commenced the instant action on February 13,
2018.

The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Anthony Patti. ECF No. 2. The parties filed
cross motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 19, 23. On August 14, 2019, Judge Patti issued a
report, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied, that Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment be granted, and that the decision of the commissioner be affirmed.
ECF No. 24.
Although the magistrate judge’s report 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
timely filed any objections. Plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to file an objection after the
fourteen day timeframe for objections had expired. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff’s motion was denied.
ECF No. 26. 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. Id.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF
No. 24, is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 19, is
DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 23, is
GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that the findings of the Commissioner are AFFIRMED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: September 10, 2019

-2-