Marshall v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Adopting Magistrate Judges's 14 Report and Recommendation, Granting Plaintiff's 8 Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying Defendant's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment, Reversing the Decision of the Commission and Remaning for Further Proceedings. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (FMos)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Alex Marshall,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-cv-11860
Hon. Judith E. Levy
Mag. Judge David R. Grand

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S [14]
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
[8] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING
DEFENDANT’S [13] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER, AND
REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff Alex Marshall filed this action on April 25, 2013, seeking
review of defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”)
decision denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the Social
Security Act.

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge David R.

Grand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The parties filed crossmotions for summary judgment. (Dkt. 8, 13.)

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Grand’s Report and
Recommendation on the cross-motions for summary judgment, issued
on April 30, 2014. (Dkt. 14.) Magistrate Judge Grand recommends that
Marshall’s motion be granted; that the Commissioner’s motion be
denied; and that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner’s
decision be reversed and this case remanded to the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) for further consideration consistent with the Report and
Recommendation.
Neither

party

has

filed

objections

to

the

Report

and

Recommendation, and the time for doing so has expired. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

The failure to object to the

Report and Recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Smith
v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.
1987). The failure to object also relieves this Court from its duty to
review this matter independently. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985). The Court has nonetheless thoroughly reviewed the Report and
Recommendation, the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment,
and the record as a whole, and agrees with the findings and conclusions
of the magistrate judge.
2

Accordingly,

Magistrate

Judge

Grand’s

Report

and

Recommendation (Dkt. 14) is ADOPTED;
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 8) is GRANTED;
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 13) is DENIED;
The Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED; and
This case is REMANDED to the ALJ for further consideration
consistent with the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2014
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on December 3, 2014.

s/Felicia M. Moses
FELICIA M. MOSES
Case Manager

3