Mayo v. Colvin
Filing
25
ORDER ACCEPTEDING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDTION (#24) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#17) AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#19). Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KIMBERLY C. MAYO,
Case No. 16-cv-12295
Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTEDING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDTION (#24) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#17) AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#19)
This matter is before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment as to
judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision disallowing benefits to Plaintiff.
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis, who issued
a Report and Recommendation on September 1, 2017, recommending that the
Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. Neither party has filed objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the time for filing objections
has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon review of the parties’ briefing
and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court concludes that
-1-
the Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusion. Therefore, the Court hereby
ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Davis’s September 1, 2017 Report and
Recommendation [#24] as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 28, 2017
s/Gershwin A. Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge
-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?