UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CARLA L. JONES, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-14809

v.

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 18)

AND

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 14)

AND

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 16)

AND

REMANDING MATTER FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

I.

This is a social security case. Plaintiff Carla L. Jones appeals from the final

determination of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) that she is not

disabled and therefore not entitled to disability insurance benefits. The matter was

referred to a magistrate judge for all pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff and the

Commissioner filed cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff requested that the

Commissioner’s decision be reversed and benefits awarded, or that the matter be

remanded for further proceedings. 

The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR), 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion be granted as to a remand and the

2:14-cv-14809-AC-MJH Doc # 19 Filed 09/29/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 519
Commissioner’s motion be denied. (Doc. 18) Specifically, the magistrate judge

recommends that the matter be remanded to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) under

sentence four1 so that the ALJ may give proper weight to plaintiff’s treating physician

psychiatrist and give the required “good cause” reasons in the notice of determination

for the weight given. 

II.

Neither party has filed objections to the MJRR and the time for filing objections

has passed. The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any

further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d

1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge's

report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motions. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

However, the Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees with the magistrate

judge. Accordingly, the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED

as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Commissioner’s motion for summary

judgment is DENIED.

1

 “A district court's authority to remand a case for further administrative

proceedings is found in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” Hollon v. Commissioner, 447 F.3d 477,

482-83 (6th Cir. 2006). The statute permits only two types of remand: a sentence four

(post-judgment) remand made in connection with a judgment affirming, modifying, or

reversing the Commissioner's decision; and a sentence six (pre-judgment) remand

where the court makes no substantive ruling as to the correctness of the

Commissioner's decision. Hollon, 447 F.3d at 486 (citing Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501

U.S. 89, 99-100, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991)). 

2

2:14-cv-14809-AC-MJH Doc # 19 Filed 09/29/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 520
This matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with

the MJRR. 

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

Dated: September 29, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 Detroit, Michigan

3

2:14-cv-14809-AC-MJH Doc # 19 Filed 09/29/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 521