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)

Download PDF
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

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?