Turner v. BERRYHILL, No. 2:2017cv13523 - Document 19 (E.D. Mich. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER Adopting 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Granting 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment, and Denying 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)

Download PDF
Turner v. BERRYHILL Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JESSICA TURNER o/b/o AT, v. Case No. 2:17-CV-13523 Plaintiff, Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. / ORDER AND OPINION ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FEBRUARY 01, 2019 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [18] Currently before the Court is the magistrate judge’s February 01, 2019 report and recommendation (ECF No. 18). The magistrate judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15) and grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17.) The Court is fully advised in the premises and has reviewed the record and the pleadings. Neither party filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. “[T]he failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report[] releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter.” Hall v. Rawal, 09-10933, 2012 WL 3639070, at *1 (E.D.Mich. Aug. 24, 2012) (citation omitted). The Court nevertheless agrees with the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The Court therefore ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. Dockets.Justia.com SO ORDERED. s/Nancy G. Edmunds Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge Dated: February 20, 2019 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on February 20, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Lisa Bartlett Case Manager

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.