Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Warren v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division

March 18, 2015

DINERO MARTEZ WARREN, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, REVERSING THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER, AND REMANDING PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR

MARIANNE O. BATTANI, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Dinero Warren brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the final decision of the Commissioner denying his application for supplemental security income benefits. Plaintiff filed the claim on September 17, 2010, alleging a disability onset date of January 11, 1994. In his Decision, dated August 7, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled.

After the Appeals Council denied review, Warren timely filed this action for judicial review of the Commissioner's decision. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. In a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") dated February 18, 2015, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk recommended that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied and that Plaintiff's motion be granted. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Commissioner’s findings be reversed, and that this matter be remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to Sentence Four for further proceedings consistent with the R&R.

In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that objections to the R&R needed to be filed “within (14) days of service” and that a party’s failure to file objections would waive any further right of appeal. (Doc. No. 16 at 46). Neither party filed an objection. Moreover, this Court agrees with the analysis contained in the R&R.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, REVERSES the findings of the Commissioner, and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings pursuant to Sentence Four.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.