Opinion
Case No. 11-11438
07-09-2012
ANTONIO MORELL MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan
OPINION AND ORDER
On April 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit challenging a final decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's application for social security benefits. On April 5, 2011, this Court referred the lawsuit to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon for all pretrial matters proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation ("R&R") on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. 3.) The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On May 29, 2012, Magistrate Judge Randon issued his R&R recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion, deny Defendant's motion, and remand the matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for a new hearing consistent with the R&R. (Doc. 20.)
In his R&R, Magistrate Judge Randon concludes that the Administrate Law Judge erred in that he failed to conduct a sufficient analysis to determine whether Plaintiff was disabled under a Listed Impairment. (Id. at 11-13.) At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Randon advises the parties that they may object to and seek review of the R&R within fourteen days of service upon them. (Id. at 14.) He further specifically advises the parties that "[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal." (Id., citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).) Neither party filed objections to the R&R.
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Randon. The Court therefore adopts Magistrate Judge Randon's May 29, 2012 Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this matter is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for a new hearing consistent with the R&R.
PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Steven V. Harthorn, Esq.
AUSA Judith E. Levy
Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon