Cichowski v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 13

ORDER Adopting 12 Report and Recommendation, Granting 11 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security, Commissioner of, and Denying 9 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Shirley Gayle Cichowski Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (CCoh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHIRLEY GAYLE CICHOWSKI,
Case No. 11-cv-10284
Plaintiff,
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (docket no.12),
GRANTING THE COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (docket no. 11), AND DENYING CICHOWSKI’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (docket no. 9)
Shirley Gayle Cichowski 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. Cichowski and the Commissioner
filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The magistrate judge issued a Report and
Recommendation ("Report") after taking the motions under consideration. She suggests
that the Court grant the Commissioner's motion, deny Cichowski's motion, and dismiss the
case. Cichowski 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”).
Cichowski did not file timely objections to the Report. Therefore, de novo review of the
motions is not required. Having reviewed the Report's analysis, in light of the administrative
record, the Court finds that its 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. 12) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment
(docket no. 11) is GRANTED, Nessel's motion for summary judgment (docket no. 9) 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: February 10, 2012
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on February 10, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Carol Cohron
Case Manager

2