Rayburn v. Social Security, Commissioner of, No. 2:2017cv14054 - Document 16 (E.D. Mich. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER Accepting 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 10 , and 12 MOTIONS for Summary Judgment - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar)

Download PDF
Rayburn v. Social Security, Commissioner of Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DEANNA RAYBURN, Plaintiff, v. No. 17-14054 Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ________________________________________/ ORDER AND OPINION ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FEBRUARY 13, 2019 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [15] Currently before the Court is the magistrate judge’s February 13, 2019 report and recommendation (Dkt. 15.). The magistrate judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and affirming the Commissioner’s decision. The Court is fully advised in the premises and has reviewed the record and the pleadings. Neither party has filed objections. “[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, No. 09-10933, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120541, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2012) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). The Court nevertheless agrees with the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The Court therefore ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Dkt. 15); DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 10); GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 12); Dockets.Justia.com and AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). SO ORDERED. s/Nancy G. Edmunds Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge Dated: March 7, 2019 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on March 7, 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.