JOHNSON v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 16

Order Adopting 15 Report and Recommendation and Granting Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment and Remanding Matter for Further Administratve Proceedings. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (SCha)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRIAN S. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 12-15593
v.
HONORABLE AVERN COHN
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 15)
AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 10)
AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 13)
AND
REMANDING MATTER FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
I.
This is a Social Security case. Plaintiff Brian S. Johnson 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’s motion requested
only that the matter be remanded for further proceedings.
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR),
recommending that plaintiff’s motion be granted and the Commissioner’s motion be
denied. Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends that the matter be remanded

under sentence four1 to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The magistrate judge finds
a remand appropriate so that the ALJ may address records relating to plaintiff’s mentalhealth symptoms that were not discussed and explain how the ALJ resolved
inconsistencies in the records in arriving at the conclusion that plaintiff was not disabled.
See MJRR at p. 25-26
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
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Commissioner’s motion for summary
judgment is DENIED.

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

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 25, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of
record on this date, March 25, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Sakne Chami
Case Manager, [phone]

3