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)

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