United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
March 11, 2015
TED MICHAEL KOLASA, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOCUMENT NO. 18), GRANTING KOLASA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCUMENT NO. 9), DENYING COMMISSIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCUMENT NO. 14), AND REMANDING CASE
HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Social Security Administration denied plaintiff and claimant Ted Michael Kolasa’s application for disability and disability insurance beneifts. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued the original decision. See ALJ Decision 11, ECF No. 6-2. After the Social Security Administration Appeals Council declined to review the ruling, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner, and Kolasa appealed to the Court. The Court referred the matter to a United States Magistrate Judge, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On February 3, 2015, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) suggesting the Court grant Kolasa’s motion and deny the Commissioner of Social Security's motion. Report, ECF No. 18.
A copy of the Report was sent to the parties on February 3, 2015. Under Civil Rule 72(b), each party had fourteen days from the date of service to file any written objections to the recommended disposition. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Neither party has filed any objections. De novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings is therefore not required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court has reviewed the file and the Report, and 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 magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (document no. 18) is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kolasa's motion for summary judgment (document no. 9) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (document no. 14) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for proceedings consistent with this opinion.