Morgan-Joe v. Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER (1) Resolving 10 and 13 Motions for Summary Judgment and (2) Remanding this Action for Further Administrative Proceedings. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TERESA MORGAN-JOE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-13328
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) RESOLVING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(ECF ## 10, 13) AND (2) REMANDING THIS ACTION FOR FURTHER
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
In this action, Plaintiff Teresa Morgan-Joe challenges the denial of her
application for disability income benefits. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Morgan-Joe and
Defendant Commissioner of Social Security have now filed cross-motions for
summary judgment. (See ECF ## 10, 13.) In Morgan-Joe’s motion, she seeks an
award of benefits, or, in the alternative, a remand to the Commissioner for further
administrative proceedings. (See ECF #10.) The Commissioner opposes MorganJoe’s request for benefits but agrees that the Court should remand this action. (See
ECF #13.)

1

On September 11, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which he recommended, among other things, that the Court
remand this action to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings (the
“R&R”). (See ECF #16.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge
informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review of his recommendation, they
needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id. at Pg.
ID 654-55.)
Neither party has filed an objection to the R&R. The failure to object to an
R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). In addition, the failure to file objections
to an R&R waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health and
Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers
Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, because neither party has filed an objection to the R&R, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to remand this
action for further administrative proceedings is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that both Morgan-Joe’s motion and the
Commissioner’s motion (ECF ## 10, 13) are GRANTED to the extent that they seek
a remand and DENIED to the extent that they seek a ruling on whether Morgan-Joe
is entitled to benefits. The Court takes no position, at this time, as to whether
2

Morgan-Joe is entitled to benefits. The Court REMANDS this action to the
Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R and
this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 4, 2018

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on October 4, 2018, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3