Postell v. Colvin

Filing 22

OPINION and ORDER (1) Adopting Magistrate Judge's 21 Report and Recommendation; (2) Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Granting In Part and Denying In Part Defendant's 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KENDRA POSTELL,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 16-cv-13645
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
MARCH 1, 2018 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 21]; (2)
GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 16]; AND (3)
GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN PART, DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 20]
On October 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit challenging a final decision
of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s application for social security benefits.
This case was originally assigned to Judge Mark A. Goldsmith and referred to
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen 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). (ECF No. 3.) On January 31, 2017,
this matter was reassigned to the undersigned and Magistrate Judge Stephanie

Dawkins Davis. (ECF No. 12.) The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for
summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 16 & 20.)
On March 1, 2018, Magistrate Judge Davis issued an R&R recommending
that this Court grant, in part, and deny, in part, Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment, and reverse and remand the matter for further proceedings.
(ECF No. 21 at Pg ID 1296.) At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge
Davis advised the parties that they may object to and seek review of the R&R
within fourteen days of service upon them. She further specifically advised the
parties that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further
right to appeal.” Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant 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’ R&R granting, in part, and denying, in part, Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED, in
part, and DENIED, in part; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendant’s motion (ECF No. 20) is
GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part; and

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the findings of the Commissioner is
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to Sentence
Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 26, 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 26, 2018, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

3