UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CORINNA M. BURRELL, 

 Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 14-14529 

 Honorable Linda V. Parker 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

FEBRUARY 29, 2016 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 21); 

(2) GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT; 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 December 2, 2014, this Court referred the matter to 

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk 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. 4.) The parties 

subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 15, 17.) On 

4:14-cv-14529-LVP-SDD Doc # 22 Filed 03/23/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 2129
January 6, 2016, the matter was reassigned for all pretrial proceedings to 

Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis. On February 29, 2016, Magistrate 

Judge Davis 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. 21.) 

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

Judge erred in evaluating the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician, David 

Calton, M.D. (ECF No. 21 at 2124-26.) Specifically, the magistrate judge 

concludes “the the ALJ failed to give the requisite ‘good reasons’ when he 

discounted the RFC assessment of . . . Dr. Calton.” (Id. at 2124-25.) Magistrate 

Judge Davis therefore concludes that the matter must be remanded to the 

Commissioner. (Id. at 2126.) The magistrate judge rejects Plaintiff’s other claims 

of error, specifically that the ALJ’s Step 3 analysis is flawed and that the ALJ erred 

when he failed to incorporate Plaintiff’s mild limitations in concentration, 

persistence, or pace into his Residual Functional Capacity assessment. (Id. at Pg 

ID 2113-21.) 

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

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

upon them. (Id. at Pg ID 2127.) She further specifically advises the parties that 

“[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to 

4:14-cv-14529-LVP-SDD Doc # 22 Filed 03/23/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 2130
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. 

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

reached by Magistrate Judge Davis. The Court therefore adopts Magistrate Judge 

Davis’s February 29, 2016 R&R. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is 

GRANTED IN PART; 

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

judgment 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: March 23, 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, March 23, 2016, by electronic and/or U.S. 

First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

4:14-cv-14529-LVP-SDD Doc # 22 Filed 03/23/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 2131