Opinion
Case No. 17-cv-13328
10-04-2018
TERESA MORGAN-JOE, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER (1) RESOLVING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF ## 10 , 13) AND (2) REMANDING THIS ACTION FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
In this action, Plaintiff Teresa Morgan-Joe challenges the denial of her application for disability income benefits. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Morgan-Joe and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security have now filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (See ECF ## 10, 13.) In Morgan-Joe's motion, she seeks an award of benefits, or, in the alternative, a remand to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. (See ECF #10.) The Commissioner opposes Morgan-Joe's request for benefits but agrees that the Court should remand this action. (See ECF #13.)
On September 11, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended, among other things, that the Court remand this action to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings (the "R&R"). (See ECF #16.) 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 654-55.)
Neither party has filed an objection to the R&R. 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). In addition, 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).
Accordingly, because neither party has filed an objection to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to remand this action for further administrative proceedings is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that both Morgan-Joe's motion and the Commissioner's motion (ECF ## 10, 13) are GRANTED to the extent that they seek a remand and DENIED to the extent that they seek a ruling on whether Morgan-Joe is entitled to benefits. The Court takes no position, at this time, as to whether Morgan-Joe is entitled to benefits. The Court REMANDS this action to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R and this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: October 4, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on October 4, 2018, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
(810) 341-9764