Opinion
Case No. 13-cv-12434
09-18-2014
TONYA ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (document no. 13), GRANTING COMMISSIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 12), DENYING ALEXANDER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 8), AND DISMISSING CASE
The Social Security Administration denied plaintiff and claimant Tonya Alexander's application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge on January 25, 2012. See ALJ Decision, ECF No. 6-2, at 13. After the SSA Appeals Council declined to review the decision, Alexander appealed to this Court. The Court referred the matter to a United States Magistrate Judge, and the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. On July 16, 2014, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting that the Court grant the Commissioner of Social Security's motion and deny Alexander's motion. Report, ECF No. 13.
Under Civil Rule 72(b), each party had fourteen days from the date of service to file any written objections to the recommended disposition. Neither party has filed any objections. De novo review of the magistrate judge's findings is therefore not required. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). The Court has reviewed the file and the Report, and finds that the magistrate judge's analysis is proper. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report's findings and conclusions and will enter an appropriate judgment.
The Report noted that Alexander's motion for summary judgment was barely supported, containing only "recitations of law with no discernable connection to the few details Plaintiff provided from the record evidence." Id. at 9. The Court notes that Alexander's counsel, Richard Doud, has repeatedly been warned about the deficient nature of his briefs. The Court will repeat the warning. See Fielder v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 13-10325, 2014 WL 1207865, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 24, 2014) ("reliance on conclusory assertions and absence of developed argument has become the calling card of Plaintiff's counsel in a number of recent Social Security cases, and nearly every Magistrate Judge in this District has expressed this concern with the work product of Plaintiff's counsel").
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (document no. 12) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (document no. 13) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Alexander's Motion for Summary Judgment (document no. 8) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED. s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: September 18, 2014 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on September 18, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol Cohron
Case Manager