Opinion
Civil No. 06-211-GFVT.
March 21, 2008
ORDER
The Plaintiff, Diane Collins, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to challenge a final decision of the Defendant, the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"), which denied her application for disability insurance benefits. [R. 2]. Consistent with the Court's practice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 626(b)(1), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins for the issuance of a report and recommendation containing the proposed findings and recommendations. [R. 12].
On June 8, 2007, Magistrate Judge Atkins filed his Report and Recommendation. [R. 16]. In his Report, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the "record requires further development" and that "remand for additional fact-finding is required for the following reasons:
(1) to update the medical evidence and remove pages 340-342 from the record as those pages do not pertain to the Plaintiff; (2) to obtain all school records and any previous intelligence testing to determine whether Plaintiff functions in the mild range of mental retardation, and fully evaluate the requirements of Listing 12.05(C); (3) if necessary, to obtain orthopedic and mental status consultative examinations, and fully evaluate all opinion evidence from the treating and examining physicians and specifically articulate what weight was given to each opinion; and (4) if necessary, to hold a supplemental hearing and obtain evidence from a vocational expert.
[Id.]. Further, the Report went on to recommend that the "Defendant Commissioner's motion to enter judgment and remand [R. 11] be granted; Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [R. 9] be granted in part, to the extent it seeks reversal of the Commissioner's decision and remand, and denied in part, to the extent that it seeks any other relief; Judgment be entered reversing the Commissioner's final decision and remanding this action for further consideration as set forth above; and that this action be stricken from the Court's docket. [Id.]. The parties were given ten (10) days from the filing of the Report and Recommendation to file objections. [Id.].
Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to "review . . . a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard. . . ." See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record, and having made a de novo determination, it agrees with the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. Accordingly, the Court being sufficiently and otherwise advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [R. 16] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court;
2. The Defendant's Motion to Enter Judgment and to Remand [R. 11 is GRANTED;
3. The Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 9] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks reversal of the Commissioner's decision and remand. The remainder of the Motion is DENIED without prejudice; and
4. A separate Judgment is entered contemporaneously herewith.