Cluchey v. Social Security
OPINION and ORDER (1) Adopting Magistrate Judge's 24 Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) Granting 22 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Civil Case No. 16-13479
Honorable Linda V. Parker
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
FEBRUARY 21, 2018 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 24];
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[ECF NO. 15]; AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 22]
On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit challenging the final
decision by the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying
Plaintiff’s application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits
under the Social Security Act. On September 27, 2016, this Court referred the
matter to Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis for all pretrial proceedings,
including a hearing and determination of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on all
dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). (ECF No. 4.)
The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos.
On February 21, 2018, Magistrate Judge Davis issued an R&R
recommending that this Court grant the Commissioner’s motion and deny
Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 24.) In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Davis rejects
Plaintiff’s claims of error based on the ALJ’s failure to consider his facet
arthropathy and obstructive sleep apnea to be severe impairments at Step 2 and to
consider all of his impairments (severe and nonsevere) throughout the sequential
review process. At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Davis advises the
parties that they may object to and seek review of the R&R within fourteen days of
service upon them. (Id. at Pg ID 811-12.) She further specifically advises the
parties that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further
right to appeal.” (Id. at Pg ID 811, citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985);
Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991).)
Neither party filed objections to the R&R.
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions
reached by Magistrate Judge Davis. The Court therefore adopts Magistrate Judge
Davis’ February 21, 2018 R&R.
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
15) is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 13, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, March 13, 2018, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
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?