Ross ex rel. Spraker v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Full title: TINA ROSS o/b/o SAMANTHA SPRAKER, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Feb 21, 2017

Case No. 2:15-cv-13133 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 21, 2017)

Opinion

Case No. 2:15-cv-13133

02-21-2017

TINA ROSS o/b/o SAMANTHA SPRAKER, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

MAGISTRATE ANTHONY P. PATTI ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [18] , DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [13], GRANTING DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [16], AND FINDING DEFENDANT'S FIRST MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [15] MOOT

The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied Samantha Spraker's¹ application for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). The SSA Appeals Council declined to review the ruling, and Spraker appealed. The Court referred the matter to the magistrate judge and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") suggesting the Court deny Spraker's motion and grant the Commissioner's motion.

1 Tina Ross is Spraker's mother and legal guardian. --------

Civil Rule 72(b) governs review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. De novo review of the magistrate judge's findings is only required if the parties "serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Because neither party filed timely objections, de novo review of the Report's conclusions is not required. Having examined the record, the Court finds that the magistrate judge's conclusions are factually based and legally sound.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [18] is ADOPTED, Spraker's Motion for Summary Judgment [13] is DENIED, the Commissioner's Second Motion for Summary Judgment [16] is GRANTED, the Commissioner's First Motion for Summary Judgment [15] is MOOT, and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge Dated: February 21, 2017 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on February 21, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/David P. Parker

Case Manager