Austin v. Social Security, Commissioner of, No. 2:2010cv14159 - Document 13 (E.D. Mich. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 7 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 10 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 12 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SANDRA E. AUSTIN, Plaintiff, Case No. 10-14159 v. Honorable Patrick J. Duggan COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. / OPINION AND ORDER At a session of said Court, held in the U.S. District Courthouse, Eastern District of Michigan, on June 1, 2012. PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE On October 18, 2010, Sandra Austin ( Plaintiff ) filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 405(g), challenging the final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security ( Commissioner ) denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Plaintiff and the Commissioner have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and these motions are presently before the Court. This matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand for all pretrial proceedings. On March 19, 2012, Magistrate Judge Grand filed a Report and Recommendation ( R&R ), in which he recommends that the Court grant the Commissioner s motion for summary judgment and deny Plaintiff s motion for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Grand concluded that reversal was not warranted on grounds that the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) failed to identify Plaintiff s depression as a severe impairment, because the ALJ had identified another severe impairment and appropriately proceeded to the next step of the five-step analysis. R&R 12. Magistrate Judge Grand further concluded that to the extent that the ALJ may have erred in analyzing the evidence of Plaintiff s depression, the error was harmless and does not require remand. R&R 12-17. Magistrate Judge Grand recommends that the Court affirm the Commissioner s decision. At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Grand advises the parties that they may object and seek review of the R&R within fourteen days of service upon them. R&R 17. He further advises that [f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Id. (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466 (1985); Howard v. Sec y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981)). No objections to the R&R have been filed. The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Grand. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff s motion for summary judgment is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. 2 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Mikel E. Lupisella, Esq. Laura A. Sagolla, A.U.S.A. 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
