Opinion
Case No. 17-cv-10452
01-16-2018
EUNICE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #16); (2) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #15); AND (3) REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
In this action, Plaintiff Eunice Johnson ("Plaintiff") challenges the denial of her application for Social Security Income under the Social Security Act. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Plaintiff and the Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant") have now filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (See ECF ## 15, 16.)
On December 21, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that (1) the Court deny Defendant's motion and (2) grant Plaintiff's motion to the extent it seeks remand and deny Plaintiff's motion to the extent it seeks an award of benefits (the "R&R"). (See ECF #18.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review of his recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id. at Pg. ID 796.)
Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant has filed any objections to the R&R. The failure to file objections to an R&R waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to an R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Accordingly, because neither Plaintiff nor Defendant failed to file any objections to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant in part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #16) is DENIED; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #15) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks remand and DENIED IN PART to the extent it seeks an award of benefits; and (3) the case is REMANDED to the ALJ for further proceedings consistent with this Order and the R&R.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: January 16, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on January 16, 2018, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
(810) 341-9764