From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seay v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 26, 2012
Case No. 11-cv-10589 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 11-cv-10589

03-26-2012

MICHAEL SEAY, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.


HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (docket no. 16), AND

GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (docket no. 15)

This matter is before the Court on review of the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying Plaintiff Michael Seay's application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under the Social Security Act. The Court referred the matter to a magistrate judge for issuance of a Report and Recommendation. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff's complaint because Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his case. See Report & Recommendation, ECF No. 16. Specifically, he failed to respond to an order to show cause, failed to file a motion for summary judgment, and failed to file a response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Id. Alternatively, the magistrate recommends granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment and affirming the findings of the Commissioner.

A copy of the Report and Recommendation was served upon the parties on February 21, 2012. Pursuant to Civil Rule 72(b)(2), each party had fourteen days from that date in which to file any specific written objections to the recommended disposition. Neither party has filed any objections, therefore de novo review of the magistrate judge's finding is not required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (requiring de novo review by a district judge only for "any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to").

Having reviewed the file and the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the magistrate judge's analysis is proper. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report's findings and conclusions, and will enter an appropriate judgment.

WHEREFORE it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of February 21, 2012, (docket no. 16) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 15) is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

___________________________

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on March 26, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Carol Cohron

Case Manager


Summaries of

Seay v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 26, 2012
Case No. 11-cv-10589 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2012)
Case details for

Seay v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL SEAY, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

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

Date published: Mar 26, 2012

Citations

Case No. 11-cv-10589 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 26, 2012)