McClure v. COLVIN

Filing 18

ORDER Adopting Magistrate Judge's 15 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (SBur)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MICHAEL THOMAS McCLURE, Plaintiff, CASE NO: 16-CV-10109-DT v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant. / ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen pursuant to U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. In his report filed on February 6, 2017, the magistrate judge recommended that this court deny Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grant Plaintiff Michael Thomas McClure’s Motion for Summary Judgment, to the extent that the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings. No objections have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), thus further appeal rights are waived.1 Having reviewed the file and the report, the court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and ADOPTS the same for purposes of this Order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment {Dkt #14} is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment {Dkt #10] is GRANTED. 1 The failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the court from its duty to independently review the motion. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is remanded for further administrative proceedings. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 7, 2017 s/Robert H. Cleland ROBERT H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, March 7, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Shawna C. Burns Case Manager Generalist (810) 984-2056

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?