Pittenger v. Social Security

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 15) AND HOLDING IN ABEYANCE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 12) AND DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 13) AND REMANDING MATTER FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE CASE Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

COREINE S. PITTENGER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 17-13675
v.
HONORABLE AVERN COHN
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 15)
AND
HOLDING IN ABEYANCE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. 12)
AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 13)
AND
REMANDING MATTER FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
AND
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE CASE
I.
This is a social security case. Plaintiff Coreine S. Pittenger from the final
determination of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) that she is not
disabled and therefore not entitled to disability insurance benefits. The matter was
referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff and the
Commissioner filed cross motions for summary judgment. The magistrate judge issued
a report and recommendation (MJRR) recommending that plaintiff’s motion beheld in
abeyance pending a remand and that the Commissioner’s motion be denied.

Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends that the matter be remanded for further
administrative proceedings under sentence six1 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) so that the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) can consider new evidence. See MJRR at p. 11-17.
II.
Neither party has filed objections to the MJRR and the time for filing objections
has passed. The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any
further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d
1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge's
report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motions. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
However, the Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees with the magistrate
judge. Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED
as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is
HELD IN ABEYANCE. The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
This matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings before the ALJ
consistent with the MJRR.

1

“A district court's authority to remand a case for further administrative
proceedings is found in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” Hollon v. Commissioner, 447 F.3d 477,
482-83 (6th Cir. 2006). The statute permits only two types of remand: a sentence four
(post-judgment) remand made in connection with a judgment affirming, modifying, or
reversing the Commissioner's decision; and a sentence six (pre-judgment) remand
where the court makes no substantive ruling as to the correctness of the
Commissioner's decision. Under a sentence six remand, the administrative
proceedings can be reopened so that the Commissioner may consider “new and
material evidence that for good cause was not previously presented to” the
Commissioner. Hollon, 447 F.3d at 483.
2

To avoid administrative difficulties, the case will administratively closed for
statistical purposes. Either party may move to reopen the case upon conclusion of the
proceedings before the ALJ.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: 2/17/2019
Detroit, Michigan

3