Johnson v. BERRYHILL

Filing 19

ORDER (1) Denying Defendant's 16 Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) Remanding for Further Proceedings. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EUNICE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-10452
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF #16); (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #15);
AND (3) REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
In this action, Plaintiff Eunice Johnson (“Plaintiff”) challenges the denial of
her application for Social Security Income under the Social Security Act. (See
Compl., ECF #1.) Plaintiff and the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”)
have now filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (See ECF ## 15, 16.)
On December 21, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that (1) the Court deny Defendant’s motion and
(2) grant Plaintiff’s motion to the extent it seeks remand and deny Plaintiff’s motion
to the extent it seeks an award of benefits (the “R&R”). (See ECF #18.) At the
conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted

1

to seek review of his recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with
the Court within fourteen days. (See id. at Pg. ID 796.)
Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant has filed any objections to the R&R.

The

failure to file objections to an R&R waives any further right to appeal. See Howard
v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit
Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the
failure to object to an R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review
the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Accordingly, because neither Plaintiff nor Defendant failed to file any
objections to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation to grant in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF #16) is DENIED; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF #15) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks remand and DENIED IN
PART to the extent it seeks an award of benefits; and (3) the case is REMANDED
to the ALJ for further proceedings consistent with this Order and the R&R.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 16, 2018
2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on January 16, 2018, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3