UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM SNELL,

 Plaintiff,

V. Case No. 14-CV-13661

Honorable Denise Page Hood 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING ACTION

This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s

Report and Recommendation. [Dkt. No. 29] Plaintiff William Snell filed this action

on September 22, 2014, asking this Court to review the Commissioner’s final decision

to deny his application for Disability Insurance Benefits. The parties filed cross

motions for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court

deny the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, grant Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment to the extent he seeks remand but deny it to the extent it seeks

reversal and a direct award of benefits, and remand this matter back to the

Commissioner for further fact-finding at Step Four with respect to Plaintiff’s ability

to perform his past relevant work. Neither party filed any objections to the Report and

2:14-cv-13661-DPH-RSW Doc # 30 Filed 05/31/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 430
Recommendation.

Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to

determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in reaching

his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The credibility

findings of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) must not be discarded lightly and

should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health and Human

Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court’s review of an ALJ’s

decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve conflicts in the

evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at 397. The decision

of the Commissioner must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even

if the record might support a contrary decision or if the district court arrives at a

different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d 106, 108 (6th Cir. 1984);

Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).

The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the

Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. Finding no

error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the

Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Furthermore, as neither party has raised

an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the parties have

waived any further objections to the Report and Recommendation. Smith v. Detroit

2

2:14-cv-13661-DPH-RSW Doc # 30 Filed 05/31/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 431
Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (a party’s failure

to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal); Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

For the reasons stated above,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 29, filed

April 29, 2016] is ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

[Docket No. 27, filed April 11, 2016] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

PART.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [Docket No. 28, filed April 19, 2016] is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED back to the

Commissioner, for further analysis regarding whether Plaintiff is able to perform his

past relevant work and make a valid Step Four determination. 

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: May 31, 2016

3

2:14-cv-13661-DPH-RSW Doc # 30 Filed 05/31/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 432
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of

record on May 31, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

4

2:14-cv-13661-DPH-RSW Doc # 30 Filed 05/31/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 433