Rangel v. Social Security, Commissioner of
Filing
16
ORDER (1) Granting Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment, (2) Denying Defendant's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment, and (3) Remanding This Action for Further Administrative Proceedings. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
COLLEEN A.R.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 24-cv-10161
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF No. 11), (2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 13), AND (3) REMANDING THIS
ACTION FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
In this action, Plaintiff Colleen A.R. challenges the denial of her application
for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits under the
Social Security Act. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Colleen A.R. and Defendant
Commissioner of Social Security have now filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. (See Mots., ECF Nos. 11, 13.)
On January 2, 2025, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which he recommended that the Court grant Colleen A.R.’s
motion, deny the Commissioner’s motion, and remand this action to the
Commissioner for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of
42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 15.) At the conclusion of the
1
R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review
of his recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court within
fourteen days. (See id., PageID.1579.)
The Commissioner has not filed any objections to the R&R. 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). See also Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950,
957 (6th Cir. 1987) (explaining that where party fails to file “timely objections” to
report and recommendation, court may accept that recommendation “without
expressing any view on the merits of the magistrate’s conclusions”). In addition, 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).
Accordingly, because the Commissioner has failed to file any objections to
the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation to grant Colleen A.R.’s motion for summary judgment and deny
the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
(1) Colleen A.R.’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 11) is
GRANTED;
2
(2) the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) is
DENIED; and
(3) this action is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further
administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R and this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 29, 2025
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on January 29, 2025, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
(313) 234-5126
3
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?