Opinion
22-12244
01-02-2024
JEFFREY THOMAS DRAKE, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
Mark A. Goldsmith, United States District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 23) AND THE COMMISSIONER'S MOTION TO REMAND (ECF NO. 26)
Curtis Ivy, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge
I. DISCUSSION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's appeal from a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on March 20, 2023. (ECF No. 23). The Commissioner then moved to remand the case to the Appeals Council. (ECF No. 26). The Commissioner believes that further administrative action is warranted. Specifically, she requests that the case be remanded to the Appeals Council, which will instruct the Administrative Law Judge to inform Plaintiff of his right to representation and to update the administrative record, provide Plaintiff with the opportunity for a new hearing, and issue a new decision. (Id. at PageID.242-43). The Commissioner states that Plaintiff was contacted to discuss her position and consented to the motion. Plaintiff did not file a reply brief and has not conveyed opposition to the remand.
Given the agreement to remand the case, the undersigned recommends it be remanded to the Appeals Council as explained above.
II. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 23) be TERMINATED AS MOOT and the Commissioner's motion to remand (ECF No. 26) be GRANTED.
The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service, as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Loc. 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.
Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” “Objection No. 2,” etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the objections in length and complexity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), Local Rule 72.1(d). The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to Objection No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may rule without awaiting the response.