Tina Ross o/b/o Samantha Spraker a legally incapcitated person v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER Adopting 18 Report and Recommendation; Denying Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting Defendant's Second 16 Motion for Summary Judgment and Finding as Moot Defendant's First 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
TINA ROSS o/b/o SAMANTHA SPRAKER,
Case No. 2:15-cv-13133
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
MAGISTRATE ANTHONY P. PATTI
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ,
DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ,
GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ,
AND FINDING DEFENDANT'S FIRST MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT  MOOT
The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied Samantha
Spraker's1 application for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits
in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). The SSA Appeals Council
declined to review the ruling, and Spraker appealed. The Court referred the matter to the
magistrate judge and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The magistrate
judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") suggesting the Court deny
Spraker's motion and grant the Commissioner’s motion.
Civil Rule 72(b) governs review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
De novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings is only required if the parties "serve and
file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). Because neither party filed timely objections, de novo review of the Report's
conclusions is not required. Having examined the record, the Court finds that the magistrate
judge's conclusions are factually based and legally sound.
Tina Ross is Spraker's mother and legal guardian.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation  is ADOPTED, Spraker's Motion for Summary Judgment  is
DENIED, the Commissioner's Second Motion for Summary Judgment  is GRANTED,
the Commissioner's First Motion for Summary Judgment  is MOOT, and the case is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: February 21, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on February 21, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/David P. Parker
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?