Carrion v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Full title: Kristy Carrion, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 18, 2014

Case No. 13-13827 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 18, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 13-13827

09-18-2014

Kristy Carrion, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Honorable Sean F. Cox

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

This is a social security appeal. On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Kristy Carrion filed her Complaint with this Court against the Commissioner of Social Security, challenging Administrative Law Judge Laura Havens's denial of her Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits application. (Doc. #1).

On January 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #8). On March 26, 2014, Defendant filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #10). This case was referred to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen for issuance of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). (Doc. #2).

On August 29, 2014, Magistrate Judge Whalen issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") wherein he recommended that this Court GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. #11).

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a matter by a Magistrate Judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). "The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

The time for filing objections to the R&R has expired and the docket reflects that neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Furthermore, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Therefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the August 29, 2014 R&R. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #8) is DENIED, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED (Doc. #10), and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge
Dated: September 18, 2014 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on September 18, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer McCoy

Case Manager