Jaye v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 18

ORDER Adopting 17 Report and Recommendation - Granting 16 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security, Commissioner of, and Denying 11 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Karen Lee Jaye and Dismissing Case. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (CCoh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KAREN LEE JAYE,
Case No. 10-cv-12732
Plaintiff,
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(docket no. 17), GRANTING THE COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (docket no. 16), DENYING JAYE’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (docket no. 11), AND DISMISSING CASE
Karen Lee Jaye filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to challenge the
Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits. The matter was referred to a
magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. Both Jaye and the Commissioner filed crossmotions for summary judgment.

The magistrate judge issued a Report and

Recommendation ("Report") after taking the motions under consideration. He suggests
that the Court grant the Commissioner's motion, deny Jaye's motion, and dismiss the case.
Jaye did not file timely objections to the Report.
Civil Rule 72(b) governs review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
De novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings is only required if the parties “serve and
file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). Nevertheless, because a district judge always retains jurisdiction over a motion
after referring it to a magistrate judge, he is entitled to review the magistrate judge's
findings of fact and conclusions of law on his own initiative See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 154 (1985) (clarifying that while a district court judge need not review a report and

recommendation “de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by
the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other
standard”).
Jaye did not file timely objections to the Report. Therefore, no de novo review of the
motions is required. Having reviewed the Report's analysis, in light of the administrative
record developed in this case, the Court finds that the Report's conclusions are factually
based and legally sound. Accordingly, it will adopt the Report's findings, and enter an
appropriate judgment dismissing the action.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report (docket no. 17) is ADOPTED,
the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (docket no. 16) is GRANTED, Jaye's
motion for summary judgment (docket no. 11) is DENIED, and the complaint is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: July 13, 2011
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on July 13, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol Cohron
Case Manager

2