Berg v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 17

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation for DENYING 13 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Nancy Berg, GRANTING 14 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security, Commissioner of re 16 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Nancy Louise Berg,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-11844

Commissioner of Social Security,

Honorable Sean F. Cox
Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder

Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER
ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
This is a social security appeal. On April 24, 2013, Plaintiff Nancy Louise Berg filed her
Complaint with this Court against the Commissioner of Social Security, alleging that an
Administrative Law Judge’s denial of her Social Security Disability Insurance benefits application
is unsupported by substantial evidence and is contrary to law and regulation. (Doc. #1).
On September 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #13). On
October 24, 2013, Defendant filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #14). This case
was referred to Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder for issuance of a Report and Recommendation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). (Doc. #3).
On September 10, 2014, Magistrate Judge Binder issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) wherein he recommended that this Court GRANT Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #16).
Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a
matter by a Magistrate Judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after being

1

served with a copy of the R&R. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). “The district judge must determine de
novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3).
The time for filing objections to the R&R has expired and the docket reflects that neither
party has filed objections to the R&R. Furthermore, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation. Therefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the September 10, 2014 R&R. IT IS
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #13) is DENIED, Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #14) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: September 30, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
September 30, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager

2