FOSTER v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 21

ORDER granting 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 20 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GOLDINE L. FOSTER,
CASE NO. 13-10813
Plaintiff,
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ARTHUR J. TARNOW

v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,

MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN

Defendant.
/
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [20], GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [14], DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [18], AND REMANDING THE MATTER FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [20],
entered on February 28, 2014, recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [14] be GRANTED, and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[18] be DENIED.
No objection to the Report and Recommendation [20] was filed. The Court has
reviewed the record in this case.
A motion for summary judgment is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(c) when
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment is also proper where the moving
party shows that the non-moving party is unable to meet its burden of proof. Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1987). Facts and inferences must be viewed in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). However, the non-moving party must
present “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial" that demonstrate
that there is more than "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Moore v.
Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 8 F.3d 335, 339-40 (6th Cir. 1993) (internal citations
omitted).
The Report and Recommendation [20] of the Magistrate Judge is hereby
ADOPTED and is entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [14] is now
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [18] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter is REMANDED for further
proceedings in accordance with the Report and Recommendation [20].
SO ORDERED.
s/Arthur J. Tarnow
ARTHUR J. TARNOW
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 25, 2014

2