Tomford v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 15

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation 14 re: 9 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Jeffrey Lynn Tomford, and 13 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security Commissioner. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JEFFREY LYNN TOMFORD,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 13-11140
HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
HON. DAVID R. GRAND

v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dkt. 14)
This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s
February 9, 2014 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 14), recommending that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 9) be GRANTED IN PART, that
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 13) 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).
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
recommendations. 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52
(1985). Nevertheless, the Court has carefully reviewed the record and does hereby

accept the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation of February 9, 2014, as
this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Grand’s Report
and Recommendation of February 9, 2013 (Dkt. 14) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Dkt. 9) is GRANTED IN PART, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.
13) is DENIED, and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner, pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g), for re-determination of Plaintiff’s residual
functional capacity; this determination should (1) reflect consideration of the
opinion of a medical source, and (2) take into account any and all medical evidence
submitted to the Appeals Council after the date of the ALJ’s original order.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 25, 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 February 25,
2014, using the CM/ECF system; which will send notification to the parties.
s/A. Chubb
Case Manager

2