Snell v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 30

ORDER Accepting Report and Recommendation 29 and Remanding Action. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM SNELL,
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No. 14-CV-13661
Honorable Denise Page Hood

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING ACTION
This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s
Report and Recommendation. [Dkt. No. 29] Plaintiff William Snell filed this action
on September 22, 2014, asking this Court to review the Commissioner’s final decision
to deny his application for Disability Insurance Benefits. The parties filed cross
motions for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court
deny the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, grant Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment to the extent he seeks remand but deny it to the extent it seeks
reversal and a direct award of benefits, and remand this matter back to the
Commissioner for further fact-finding at Step Four with respect to Plaintiff’s ability
to perform his past relevant work. Neither party filed any objections to the Report and

Recommendation.
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to
determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in reaching
his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The credibility
findings of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) must not be discarded lightly and
should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court’s review of an ALJ’s
decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve conflicts in the
evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at 397. The decision
of the Commissioner must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even
if the record might support a contrary decision or if the district court arrives at a
different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d 106, 108 (6th Cir. 1984);
Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).
The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the
Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. Finding no
error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the
Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Furthermore, as neither party has raised
an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the parties have
waived any further objections to the Report and Recommendation. Smith v. Detroit
2

Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (a party’s failure
to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal); Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 29, filed
April 29, 2016] is ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Docket No. 27, filed April 11, 2016] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Docket No. 28, filed April 19, 2016] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED back to the
Commissioner, for further analysis regarding whether Plaintiff is able to perform his
past relevant work and make a valid Step Four determination.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: May 31, 2016

3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on May 31, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4