Locke v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER Accepting Report and Recommendation 18 and Remanding Action. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CATHY MICHELLE LOCKE,
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No. 14-13907
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 Elizabeth A. Stafford’s
Report and Recommendation. [#18] Plaintiff Cathy Michelle Locke filed this action
on October 9, 2014, asking this Court to review the Commissioner’s final decision to
deny his application for supplemental security income 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 she seeks remand but deny it to the extent she seeks
reversal and a direct award of benefits, and remand this matter back to the
Commissioner for further consideration, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). 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
Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (a party’s failure
2

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. 18, filed
February 9, 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. 13, filed April 13, 2015] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Docket No. 16, filed June 24, 2015] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED back to the
Commissioner, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for the purpose of
reassessing Plaintiff’s physical residual functional capacity.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: March 22, 2016

3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on March 22, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4