Williams v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 16

ORDER Adopting 15 Report and Recommendation: Denying 14 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security, Commissioner of; Granting 11 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dorothy Antoinette Williams and Remanding Case. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (CCoh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DOROTHY ANTOINETTE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-cv-12617

v.

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(document no. 15), DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 14), GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 11), and REMANDING CASE
The Social Security Administration denied plaintiff and claimant Dorothy Antoinette
Williams’ application for a period of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income. An Administrative Law Judge issued the original decision. See ALJ Decision, ECF
No. 9-2, at 15. After the SSA Appeals Council declined to review the ruling, Williams
appealed to this Court. The Court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge
Steven Whalen, and the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. On August 7,
2014, Magistrate Judge Whalen issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting the
Court grant Williams’ motion to the extent it argues for remand of the case to the
administrative level, and deny the Commissioner of Social Security's motion. Report, ECF
No. 15.
Under Civil Rule 72(b), each party had fourteen days from the date of service to file
any written objections to the recommended disposition. The statutory window has expired
and neither party has filed any objections. De novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings
is therefore not required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)–(3) (mandating de novo review only

if the parties “serve and file specific written objection to the proposed findings and
recommendations”). The Court has reviewed the file and the Report, and finds the
magistrate judge’s analysis is proper. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report’s findings
and conclusions, and will enter an appropriate judgment.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation (document no. 15) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment
(document no. 14) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Williams’ motion for summary judgment (document
no. 11) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case be REMANDED to the administrative level
for further administrative proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: September 22, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on September 22, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol Cohron
Case Manager

2