1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DARYL KLUMP, 

 Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 14-12428 

 Honorable Linda V. Parker 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S APRIL 

26, 2016 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 23]; (2) 

GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 9]; (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 11]; AND (4) REMANDING FOR 

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 

On December 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit challenging the 

Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner’s”) final decision denying 

Plaintiff’s application for disability and disability insurance benefits under the 

Social Security Act. On June 23, 2014, this Court referred the matter to Magistrate 

Judge David R. Grand 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. 2.) The parties subsequently filed crossmotions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 9, 11.) On January 12, 2015, the 

4:14-cv-12428-LVP-EAS Doc # 24 Filed 05/24/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 699
2 

matter was reassigned for all pretrial proceedings to Magistrate Elizabeth A. 

Stafford. On April 26, 2016, Magistrate Judge Stafford issued her R&R 

recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff’s motion, deny the Commissioner’s 

motion, and remand the matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for 

further proceedings. (ECF No. 23.) 

 In her R&R, Magistrate Judge Stafford concludes that the Administrate Law 

Judge erred at step three in failing to obtain a medical opinion on the issue of 

equivalency relating to Klump’s physical impairments, and that the lack of a 

medical opinion also renders the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) 

assessment unsupported by substantial evidence. (Id. at Pg. ID 689–90, 693.) 

Magistrate Judge Stafford therefore concludes that the matter must be remanded to 

the Commissioner. (Id. at Pg. ID 696.) 

At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Stafford advises the parties 

that they may object to and seek review of the R&R within fourteen days of service 

upon them. (Id.) She further specifically advises the parties that “[f]ailure to file 

specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal.” (Id., citing 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human 

Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th 

Cir. 1981).) Neither party filed objections to the R&R. 

4:14-cv-12428-LVP-EAS Doc # 24 Filed 05/24/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 700
3 

 The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions 

reached by Magistrate Judge Stafford. The Court therefore adopts Magistrate 

Judge Stafford’s April 26, 2016 R&R. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 

9) is GRANTED IN PART; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 11) is DENIED; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this matter is REMANDED pursuant 

to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the 

R&R. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: May 24, 2016 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, May 24, 2016, by electronic and/or U.S. 

First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

4:14-cv-12428-LVP-EAS Doc # 24 Filed 05/24/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 701