Kirchner v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 15

ORDER denying 9 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 14 Report and Recommendation on 14 Report and Recommendation, 9 Motion for Summary Judgment, 13 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SHAWN MARIE KIRCHNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Case No. 12-cv-15052
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
/

OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2)
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On November 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit challenging the
Commissioner’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s application for disability
insurance benefits. On that date, this Court referred the lawsuit to Magistrate
Judge David R. Grand for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and
determination of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
and/or a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 2.) The parties subsequently filed crossmotions for summary judgment. On September 30, 2013, Magistrate Judge Grand
issued his R&R recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion, grant

Defendant’s motion, and affirm the Social Security Commissioner’s decision.
(ECF No. 14.)
In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Grand concludes that the administrative law
judge did not err in formulating a hypothetical question for the vocational expert or
in determining Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. (Id. at 18-21.) Magistrate
Judge Grand therefore concludes that substantial evidence supports the
Commissioner’s finding that Plaintiff was not disabled for purposes of the Social
Security Act. (Id. at 21.) At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Grand
advises the parties that they may object to and seek review of the R&R within
fourteen days of service upon them. (Id. at 22.) He further specifically advises the
parties that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further
right to appeal.” (Id.) No objections to the R&R were filed.
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with Magistrate
Judge Grand’s conclusions. The Court therefore adopts Magistrate Judge Grand’s
September 30, 2013 Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is
DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendant’s motion for summary
2

judgment is GRANTED.
Dated: November 4, 2013

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:
Richard J. Doud, Esq.
Marc Boxerman, Esq.
AUSA Theresa M. Urbanic
Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

3