White v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Full title: TERRYL M. WHITE, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

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

Date published: Mar 15, 2012

Case No. 10-cv-14745 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 15, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 10-cv-14745

03-15-2012

TERRYL M. WHITE, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION (docket no. 18), GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (docket no. 13), AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (docket no. 12)

This matter is before the Court on review of the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying Plaintiff Terryl M. White's application for Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, and the matter was referred to a magistrate judge for issuance of a Report and Recommendation. The magistrate judge recommends that the Court deny White's motion for summary judgment, and grant the Commissioner's. Report & Recommendation, ECF No. 18.

A copy of the Report and Recommendation was served upon the parties on February 23, 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 23, 2012, (docket no. 18) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 13) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 12) is DENIED.

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 15, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Carol Cohron

Case Manager