Garza v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER Adopting 16 Report and Recommendation: Granting in part and Denying in part 13 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Victoria Garza, and Denying 15 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Commissioner of Social Security Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (CCoh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VICTORIA GARZA,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:15-cv-11507

v.

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(document no. 16), DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (document no. 15), AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT (document no. 13)
Plaintiff Victoria Garza seeks reversal of the Social Security Administration’s
determination against awarding her disability benefits. Compl., ECF No. 1. The parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 13, 15. The Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation, and found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not
properly consider the evidence under the relevant determination framework. Report 7–14,
ECF No. 16. Garza asks the Court for an award of benefits or remand to the ALJ for further
proceedings. The Report recommended remand rather than an immediate award of
benefits. Id. at 14.
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 objections to the proposed findings and recommendations”). The Court has
carefully reviewed the entire 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
agrees with the Report that remand is proper. The Court will enter an appropriate judgment.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation
(document no. 16) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(document no. 15) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (document
no. 13) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case be REMANDED to the Administrative Law
Judge for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.
SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: February 19, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on February 19, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol Cohron
Case Manager

2