Carter v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Full title: DANIELLE CARTER, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Feb 3, 2022

2:20-cv-12802 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 3, 2022)

Opinion

2:20-cv-12802

02-03-2022

DANIELLE CARTER, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III, Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [18], DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [16], AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [17]

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied the application of Plaintiff Danielle Carter for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). ECF 1, PgID 2. After the SSA Appeals Council declined to review the ruling, Plaintiff appealed. Id. The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford, ECF 5, and the parties cross-moved for summary judgment, ECF 16; 17. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and suggested the Court deny Plaintiff's motion and grant the Commissioner's motion. ECF 18. Civil Rule 72(b) governs review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. De novo review of the magistrate judge's findings is required only if the parties “serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Because neither party filed objections, de novo review of the Report's conclusions is not required. After reviewing the record, the Court finds that the magistrate judge's conclusions are factually based and legally sound. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report's findings, deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and grant the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [18] is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [16] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on February 3, 2022, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.