1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DIANN HAYES, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 14-14662 

 Hon. Denise Page Hood 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant, 

________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (DOC # 22) 

Plaintiff, Diann Hayes has filed for a timely judicial review of Defendant 

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits. All pretrial matters were 

assigned to Magistrate Judge Stafford. On May 20, 2015 this case was temporarily 

transferred to a three judge panel under Administrative Order 15-AO-045 to take 

the Commissioner’s 60 days stay and Plaintiff’s motion for substitution under 

consideration. This case was then transferred back on October 19, 2015 to 

Magistrate Judge Stafford once the work from the three judge panel was 

concluded. The Court directed Hayes that she was to either retain new counsel by 

December 19, 2015 or proceed without the assistance of counsel, pro se. Plaintiff 

did not retain new counsel; therefore, the temporary stay was lifted and Hayes was 

considered pro se. (Doc. #19). Magistrate Judge Stafford ordered Plaintiff to file a 

2:14-cv-14662-DPH-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 992
2

new motion summary for judgment by February 4, 2016, but she did not do so. On 

February 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge determined that the Plaintiff’s Social 

Security Appeal would be decided based on the existing record. 

 Once a report and recommendation has been issued, a party has fourteen 

days to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and 

recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636. A district court is not required to review any 

portion of a repost and recommendation to which no objection was made. HickeyNiezgoda v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No. 11-10538, 2012 WL 1079573, at * 

(E.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2012) citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). A court may accept, reject, or modify, whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Id. 

 Neither party filed any written objections, and the time period for filing 

objections has expired. The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and 

finds that the Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions. Although the 

arguments within the previous motion from her prior attorney lacked developed 

arguments or supporting evidence, Magistrate Judge Stafford independently 

reviewed and considered the evidence within the record and the ALJ’s findings. 

After this thorough review, Magistrate Judge Stafford determined that the 

Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. 

2:14-cv-14662-DPH-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 993
3

 Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stafford's Report and 

Recommendation and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

(Doc. # 12). Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 10) is DENIED. 

 

IT IS ORDERED. 

 s/Denise P. Hood 

 HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: September 6, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

record on this date, September 6, 2016September 6, 2016, by electronic and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Keisha Jackson 

 for Case Manager L. Saulsberry

2:14-cv-14662-DPH-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 09/06/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 994