Bentley v. Social Security
Filing
18
ORDER Adopting 17 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SHANON DAWN BENTLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 17-13662
Hon. Terrence G. Berg
COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge
Stephanie Dawkins Davis’ Report and Recommendation of
February 22, 2019 (ECF No. 17) recommending that Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) be granted and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) be denied.
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation. The law provides that either party may serve
and file written objections “[w]ithin fourteen days after being
served
with
a
copy”
of
a
report
and
recommendation.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court will make a “de novo
determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection
is made.” Id. Where, as here, neither party objects to the report, the
district court is not obligated to independently review the record.
1
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). The Court will
therefore accept the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation of
February 22, 2019 as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions
of law.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge
Davis’s Report and Recommendation of February 22, 2019 is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s
claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 13, 2019
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically filed,
and the parties and/or counsel of record were served on March
13, 2019.
s/A. Chubb
Case Manager
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?