Perry et al v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 26

ORDER Adopting 25 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (Chubb, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TILGHMAN COLE PERRY, JR.,
v.

Case No. 13-10054

Plaintiff,

HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
HON. R. STEVEN WHALEN

COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dkt. 25)
This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s
January 8, 2014 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 25), recommending that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 21) be GRANTED, that Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 17) be DENIED, and that the case be
REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings, pursuant to sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).1
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 the 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

The fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) states: "The court shall have power to enter, upon the
pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing."
1

review the record. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). Nevertheless,
the Court has carefully reviewed and does hereby accept the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation of January 8, 2014, as this Court’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Whalen’s Report
and Recommendation of January 8, 2014 (Dkt. 25) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Dkt. 21) is GRANTED, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 17) is
DENIED, and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner, pursuant to sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for reconsideration of the weight given to the opinion of
Plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Choung C. Cho.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2014

s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on January 30,
2014, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to all parties.
s/A. Chubb
Case Manager

2