Foster v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 27

ORDER Adopting 26 Report and Recommendation: Denying 15 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Arzel Foster, III; Finding Moot 22 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security, Commissioner of; and Granting 23 Amended Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security, Commissioner of Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (CCoh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ARZEL FOSTER, III,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-11437

v.

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (document no. 26), GRANTING
COMMISSIONER’S AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (document no. 23), FINDING MOOT COMMISSIONER’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 22), DENYING FOSTER’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 15), AND DISMISSING CASE
Arzel Lee Foster, III, applied for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). The Social
Security Administration (“SSA”) denied his application in an opinion issued by an
Administrative Law Judge on November 12, 2013. See ALJ Decision, ECF No. 11-2. After
the SSA Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ decision, Foster appealed to federal
court. The Court referred the matter to a United States Magistrate Judge, and the parties
filed cross motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 15, 22, 23. On April 23, 2015, the
magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) suggesting the Court
grant the Commissioner’s amended motion, find moot the Commissioner’s first motion,
deny Foster’s motion, and dismiss the case. Report, ECF No. 26.
Under Civil Rule 72(b), each party had fourteen days from the date of service to file
any written objections to the recommended disposition. 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 that 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. 26) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Amended Motion for Summary
Judgment (document no. 23) is GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (document no. 22) is MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Foster’s Motion for Summary Judgment (document
no. 15) is DENIED, and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: July 16, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on July 16, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol Cohron
Case Manager

2