Haas v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 4:2016cv11817 - Document 20 (E.D. Mich. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER (1) Adopting Magistrate Judge's 19 Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying Plaintiff's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Granting Defendant's 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; and (4) Affirming Defendant's Decision Denying Plaintiff Social Security Benefits. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Haas v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JACQUELINE ANN HAAS, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 16-11817 Honorable Linda V. Parker v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S AUGUST 1, 2017 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND (4) AFFIRMING DEFENDANT’S DECISION DENYING PLAINTIFF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS On May 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit challenging Defendant’s final decision denying her application for social security benefits. On May 23, 2016, this Court referred the lawsuit to Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 4.) The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 15, 18.) Dockets.Justia.com On August 1, 2017, Magistrate Judge Patti issued an R&R recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, grant Defendant’s motion, and affirm Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff’s application for social security benefits. (ECF No. 19.) At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Patti advises the parties that they may object to and seek review of the R&R within fourteen days of service upon them. (Id. at Pg ID 598.) He further specifically advises the parties that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal.” (Id.) Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed objections to the R&R. The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge Patti. The Court therefore adopts Magistrate Judge Patti’s August 1, 2017 R&R. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15) is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff’s 2 application for social security benefits is AFFIRMED. s/ Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: August 31, 2017 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, August 31, 2017, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class mail. s/ R. Loury Case Manager 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.
