Sabbota v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 23

ORDER Adopting 22 Report and Recommendation and dismissing action with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (ATee)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STEVEN SABBOTA
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No. 17-12477
Honorable Denise Page Hood

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING ACTION
This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s
Report and Recommendation. [#22] Pro se Plaintiff filed this action on July 31, 2017,
asking this Court to review the Commissioner’s final decision to deny his application
for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under the Social Security Act. After Plaintiff
was granted two extensions (and approximately five extra months) to file his motion
for summary judgment, the Magistrate Judge issued Plaintiff an Order to Show Cause
why his Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not
file a response to the Order to Show Cause, and the Magistrate Judge entered the
Report and Recommendation on July 5, 2018, wherein he recommends that the Court
dismiss Plaintiff’s cause of action for failure to prosecute this case. Neither party filed

any objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to
determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in reaching
his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The credibility
findings of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) must not be discarded lightly and
should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court’s review of an ALJ’s
decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve conflicts in the
evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at 397. The decision
of the Commissioner must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even
if the record might support a contrary decision or if the district court arrives at a
different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d 106, 108 (6th Cir. 1984);
Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).
The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the
Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. Finding no
error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the
Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Furthermore, as neither party has raised
an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the parties have
waived any further objections to the Report and Recommendation. Smith v. Detroit
2

Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (a party’s failure
to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal); Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 22, filed
July 5, 2018] is ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. Judgment shall be entered separately.

s/Denise Page Hood
DENISE PAGE HOOD
United States District Judge

DATED: July 30, 2018

3