Springer v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Full title: DARYL B. SPRINGER, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY…

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

Date published: Jul 10, 2017

Case No. 16-cv-10681 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 10, 2017)

Opinion

Case No. 16-cv-10681

07-10-2017

DARYL B. SPRINGER, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #16) , (2) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #19), AND (3) REMANDING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR BENEFITS FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

In this action, Plaintiff Daryl B. Springer ("Plaintiff") challenges the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Plaintiff and the Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant") have now filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (See ECF ## 16, 19.)

On June 22, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion, deny Defendant's motion, and this matter be remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings (the "R&R"). (See ECF #23.) 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 625-26.)

Defendant has not 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 Defendant has failed to file any objections to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #16) is GRANTED; (2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #19) is DENIED; and (3) Plaintiff's claim for benefits is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the R&R (ECF #23) and this order.

s/Matthew F. Leitman

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: July 10, 2017

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on July 10, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Monda

Case Manager

(810) 341-9764