Nogle v. Colvin
ORDER Adopting 19 Report and Recommendation Granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by CAROLYN W COLVIN and Denying 14 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Michael Nogle, Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION (PORT HURON)
CASE NO: 16-CV-12607-DT
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the court on the parties cross motions for summary
judgment. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge David R. Grand
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.1. The magistrate judge issued
his report on May 26, 2017 recommending that this court GRANT the Commissioner’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt #17], DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Dkt #14] and AFFIRM the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. 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.
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 ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt #14] is
DENIED, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt #17] is GRANTED and the
decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED..
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 29, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
and/or pro se parties on this date, June 29, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
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?