UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL MINTHORN, 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 14-14114 

 Honorable Avern Cohn 

v. Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 

 Defendant. 

_________________________/

ORDER LIFTING STAY [16], STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

MOTION AND PROPOSED AMENDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION [9, 13], 

DENYING MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL [11] AND TERMINATING 

ATTORNEY RICHARD DOUD AND THE FIRM OF DAVIDSON, BREEN, DOUD, 

STEELE & FERGUSON, P.C. AS PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL OF RECORD, DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 

[12], DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED AMENDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

MOTION [15], AND AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER [8] 

 Plaintiff Michael Minthorn (“Minthorn”) commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g), challenging a final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social Security 

(“Commissioner”) that he was no longer disabled as of August 30, 2011, and therefore not 

entitled thereafter to continue receiving Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under the Social 

Security Act (the “Act”). [1]. This action has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial 

purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). [2].

 When Minthorn commenced this action, he was represented by attorney Richard Doud of 

the firm Davidson, Breen, Doud, Steele & Ferguson, P.C. (the “Firm”). Doud filed a motion for 

summary judgment on Minthorn’s behalf on February 11, 2015. [9]. The Commissioner was 

given an extension of time to respond to Minthorn’s motion (and to file its own summary 

2:14-cv-14114-AC-DRG Doc # 18 Filed 01/11/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 812
2

judgment motion) until April 13, 2015. On April 10, 2015, attorney James Smith of the Firm 

moved to substitute into the action for attorney Doud on behalf of Minthorn. [11]. On that same 

date, Minthorn (this time through attorney Smith) filed a motion for leave to amend his summary 

judgment motion as well as a proposed amended summary judgment motion. [12, 13]. The 

Commissioner filed a response to Minthorn’s motion for leave indicating that it did not object to 

that motion, provided it was afforded the typical time period to respond. [14]. On May 12, 

2015, the Commissioner filed a motion for extension of time to respond to Minthorn’s proposed 

amended summary judgment motion. [15]. 

 On May 20, 2015, this action was transferred to a three-judge panel (the “Panel”) to 

address the Firm’s representation of Social Security claimants in the Eastern District of 

Michigan. [5/20/15 docket entry]. Pursuant to 15-AO-033, on June 9, 2015, the Panel 

administratively stayed this action. [16]. On October 19, 2015, pursuant to 15-AO-045, the 

Panel determined that affected cases (including this one) would be transferred back to the 

originally assigned judge, and that it would be each such judge’s responsibility to determine 

when to lift the stay. [10/19/15 docket entry].

The Court is advised that the Firm has notified Minthorn that he would have until 

December 30, 2015, to retain a new attorney and have that attorney file an appearance in this 

action. Minthorn was also notified that if no such appearance was filed by December 30, 2015, 

the Court would consider Minthorn to be continuing his appeal without legal representation, i.e.,

that he would be representing himself in this action pro se. [17]. Because no new attorney has 

appeared on Minthorn’s behalf, the Court deems him to be representing himself pro se.

In light of these developments, IT IS ORDERED that the previously entered STAY [16] 

IS LIFTED. Because the Firm may not represent Minthorn in this action, IT IS ORDERED

2:14-cv-14114-AC-DRG Doc # 18 Filed 01/11/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 813
3

that attorney Smith’s motion to substitute [11] is DENIED, and attorney Doud and the Firm are 

TERMINATED AS COUNSEL OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION.

In light the Panel’s conclusion that the Firm may not represent Minthorn in this matter, 

IT IS ORDERED that Minthorn’s motion for leave to file an amended summary judgment 

motion [12] is DENIED, and Minthorn’s motion for summary judgment and proposed amended 

motion for summary judgment [9, 13] are STRICKEN. Further, the Commissioner’s motion for 

extension of time [15] is DENIED AS MOOT.

 In light of the foregoing, the Scheduling Order [8] is amended as follows: 

x Minthorn shall have until February 12, 2016, to file a new summary judgment 

motion. As Minthorn is proceeding pro se, his filing need not be in the form of a 

formal legal brief – rather, Minthorn may simply advise the Court in writing as to 

why he believes the Commissioner’s decision is in error.

x The Commissioner shall have until March 11, 2016, to file a response to 

Minthorn’s summary judgment materials and to file its own motion for summary 

judgment. 

x Minthorn shall have until March 25, 2016, to file a reply brief.

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 11, 2016 s/David R. Grand 

Ann Arbor, Michigan DAVID R. GRAND 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS 

 The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and 

Recommendation, but are required to act within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as 

provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific 

objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

2:14-cv-14114-AC-DRG Doc # 18 Filed 01/11/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 814
4

(1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir.1991); United

States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir.1981). The filing of objections which raise 

some issues, but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the objections a party 

might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 931 

F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir.1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 

1373 (6th Cir.1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be 

served upon this magistrate judge. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on January 11, 2016. 

 s/Eddrey O. Butts 

 EDDREY O. BUTTS 

 Case Manager

2:14-cv-14114-AC-DRG Doc # 18 Filed 01/11/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 815