Richardson v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 24

Order Adopting 23 Report and Recommendation and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant's 18 Motion for Summary Judgment and Remanding Matter for Further Administrative Proceedings. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONALD RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 12-10131
v.
HONORABLE AVERN COHN
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 23)
AND
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 17)
AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 18)
AND
REMANDING MATTER FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
I.
This is a social security case. Plaintiff Donald Richardson appeals from the final
determination of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) that he is not
disabled and therefore not entitled to disability insurance benefits. The matter was
referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff and the
Commissioner filed cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff requested that the
Commissioner’s decision be reversed and benefits awarded, or that the matter be
remanded for further proceedings. The magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation (MJRR) recommending that plaintiff’s motion be granted as to a

remand and the Commissioner’s motion be denied. Specifically, the magistrate judge
recommends that the matter be remanded for further administrative proceedings under
sentence four1 “(1) for a full discussion of the ALJ’s reasoning for assigning ‘very little
weight’ to Dr. Stoker’s opinion; (2) for a discussion of how the ALJ determined Plaintiff’s
RFC after articulating his reasoning for the weight afforded to Dr. Stoker’s opinion; (3) to
include in Plaintiff’s RFC a limitation for Plaintiff’s moderate, stress-based limitations as
determined by the ALJ in Step 3; and (4) to determine whether the VE’s testimony is
consistent with the DOT.” See MJRR at p. 24.
II.
Neither party has filed objections to the MJRR and the time for filing objections
has passed. The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any
further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d
1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge's
report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motions. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
However, the Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees with the magistrate
judge. Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED
as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is
1

“A district court's authority to remand a case for further administrative
proceedings is found in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” Hollon v. Commissioner, 447 F.3d 477,
482-83 (6th Cir. 2006). The statute permits only two types of remand: a sentence four
(post-judgment) remand made in connection with a judgment affirming, modifying, or
reversing the Commissioner's decision; and a sentence six (pre-judgment) remand
where the court makes no substantive ruling as to the correctness of the
Commissioner's decision. Hollon, 447 F.3d at 486 (citing Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501
U.S. 89, 99-100, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991)).
2

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Commissioner’s motion for summary
judgment is DENIED.
This matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with
the MJRR.
SO ORDERED.
S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 26, 2013

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of
record on this date, March 26, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Sakne Chami
Case Manager, [phone]

3