Menser v. Social Security

Filing 24

ORDER Adopting 23 Report and Recommendation, Granting 16 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Austin D. Menser, Denying 22 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Commissioner of Social Security. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DWor)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION AUSTIN MENSER, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:16-cv-11787 v. HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III COMMISSIONER of SOCIAL SECURITY, MAGISTRATE PATRICIA T. MORRIS Defendant. / ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [23], GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [16], AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [22] The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) denied Plaintiff Austin Menser's 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 Menser appealed. The Court referred the matter to the magistrate judge and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. See ECF 16, 22. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting the Court grant Menser's motion, deny the Commissioner’s motion, and remand the case. Neither party objected. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) governs review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The Court must review the magistrate's judge's findings de novo 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. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [23] is ADOPTED, Menser's Motion for Summary Judgment [16] is GRANTED, the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [22] is DENIED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). SO ORDERED. s/Stephen J. Murphy, III STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III United States District Judge Dated: June 14, 2017 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on June 14, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/David P. Parker Case Manager 2

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?