Getzen v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 14

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation for Denying 11 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security, Commissioner of, Granting 9 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Michael Lee Getzen re 13 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Michael Lee Getzen,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-14676
Honorable Sean F. Cox

Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff brought this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s unfavorable
decision disallowing social security disability benefits. (Docket No. 1.) Thereafter, the matter was
referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon for determination of all non-dispositive motions
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Report and Recommendation pursuant to § 636(b)(1)(B) and
(C) . (Docket No. 3.)
Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Docket Nos. 9, 11.) In
a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued on August 22, 2012, Magistrate Judge Randon
concluded that substantial evidence does not support the Commissioner’s determination that Plaintiff
is not disabled. (Docket No. 13, at 2.) Magistrate Judge Randon recommended that this Court: 1)
GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and 2) DENY the Commissioner’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, and that the findings and conclusions of the Commissioner be REMANDED
for further proceedings. (Docket No. 13, at 21.)

1

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a
matter by a Magistrate Judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy of the R&R. “The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de
novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate
judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made.” Id.
The time for filing objections to the R&R has expired and the docket reflects that neither
party has filed objections to the R&R.
The Court hereby ADOPTS the August 22, 2012 R&R. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
DENIED and that the Commissioner’s findings and conclusions are REMANDED for further
proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: October 2, 2012
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on October 2, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager

2