Cluchey v. Social Security

Filing 25

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)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RICHARD CLUCHEY, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 16-13479 Honorable Linda V. Parker v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. / 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. 15, 22.) 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. Accordingly, 2 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 Case Manager 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?