Rita A. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Rita A.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-10732

v. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge Commissioner of Social Security, Mag. Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [18], GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [10], AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [16]

This is a Social Security appeal. Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 18) recommending the Court grant Plaintiff Rita A.’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 10), deny Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16), and remand the matter to the Commissioner for further action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The parties were required to file specific written objections to the R&R within fourteen days of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d). No objections were filed. The Court has nevertheless thoroughly reviewed the R&R and

concurs in the reasoning and result. Accordingly, The R&R (ECF No. 18) is ADOPTED;1

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED; Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) is

DENIED; and The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for proceedings

consistent with the R&R.2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 Footnote 2 of the R&R states in part that “the Court agrees with opinions finding that a claimant’s failure to question the VE does waive her right to challenge the RFC.” (ECF No. 18, PageID.4497 n.2 (citing Chance v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:21-CV-00156-DAR, 2022 WL 1046088, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 7, 2022)).) This Court believes that the word “not” was inadvertently omitted from the sentence and that the Magistrate Judge intended that the R&R indicate instead that “the Court agrees with opinions finding that a claimant’s failure to question the VE does [not] waive her right to challenge the RFC.” (Id.)

2 By failing to object to the R&R, the parties have waived any further right of appeal. See United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868, 878 (6th Cir. 2019); see also Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019). Dated: March 6, 2026 s/Judith E. Levy Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court s ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 6, 2026.

s/William Barkholz WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager