Rohlof v. Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Julie Ann R.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 23-cv-11491

v. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge Commissioner of Social Security, Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [20]

This is a Social Security appeal. Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 20) recommending the Court grant Plaintiff Julie Ann R.’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16), deny Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18), and remand the matter to the Commissioner “for action consistent with th[e R&R].” (ECF No. 20, PageID.800, 818.) Judge Patti issued the R&R on August 20, 2024. The parties were required to file specific written objections to the R&R within fourteen days of service. 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. 20) is ADOPTED; Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) is

GRANTED; The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18) is DENIED; and

The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the R&R and this order.1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2024 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 September 16, 2024.

s/William Barkholz

1 By failing to object to the R&R, the parties have forfeited any further right of appeal. 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). WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager