Bennett v. Social Security

Filing 20

ORDER Adopting 19 Report and Recommendation; Granting Plaintiff's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; and Denying Defendant's 16 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SHANELL BENNETT,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:16-cv-11884

v.

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

MAGISTRATE ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

Defendant.
/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [19],
GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [14],
AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [16]
The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied Shanell
Bennett'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 Bennett 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 grant
Bennett's motion, deny the Commissioner's motion, and remand the case.
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.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation [19] is ADOPTED, Bennett's Motion for Summary Judgment [14] is

GRANTED, the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [16] is DENIED, and the
case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative action, pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the ALJ shall reconsider Bennett's full
range of limitations supported by the record, as discussed in the Report and
Recommendation.
SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: August 16, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on August 16, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/David P. Parker
Case Manager

2