Mitchell v. Social Security, Commissioner of
Order Adopting 24 Report and Recommendation and Granting Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Summary Judgment as to a Remand and Denying Defendant's 22 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
Case No. 13-10178
HONORABLE AVERN COHN
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 24)
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO A REMAND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 22)
REMANDING MATTER FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
This is a Social Security case. Plaintiff Marian Mitchell appeals from the final
determination of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) that she 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. Although plaintiff initially
moved for a reversal and an award of benefits, plaintiff later alternatively requested a
remand for further proceedings. See Doc. 3 at p. 6.
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) so that the ALJ further
consider the findings of Dr. Leno, provide additional support showing plaintiff’s ability to
engage in skilled work and, if necessary, revisit the hypothetical. See MJRR at p.13.
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.
“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)).
This matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with
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.
Case Manager, (313) 234-5160
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?