UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GLORIA RENEE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 2:15-cv-12494

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

(document no. 18), DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (document no. 16), AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 13)

The case comes to the Court for a second time. Renee Brown ("Brown") filed an

application for Supplemental Social Security Income ("SSI") in July 2007. When the

application was denied, Brown sought review from an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"),

who determined that Brown is not disabled and issued a written decision on December 23,

2009. After the Appeals Council denied review, Brown filed for judicial review of the final

decision. The Court referred the case to a magistrate judge, who issued a Report and

Recommendation urging remand of the case to the ALJ on the grounds that the ALJ had

failed to consider the disability function report of Brown's treating physician. The Court

adopted that recommendation and remanded the matter on March 8, 2012.

In December of 2010, while Brown's initial determination was still pending, she filed

another application for SSI. The application was also denied and Brown again sought and

received review by the Appeals Council. The Council vacated both ALJ decisions,

consolidated the cases and remanded the matter to ALJ Mary S. Connolly. After a hearing,

the ALJ again determined that Brown was not disabled and this time the Appeals Council

2:15-cv-12494-SJM-DRG Doc # 19 Filed 08/10/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1311
denied review. Brown then brought the present action seeking judicial review of the final

decision. 

The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand and the parties filed

cross motions for summary judgment. The magistrate judge issued a Report and

Recommendation ("Report") suggesting denial of the Commissioner's motion for summary

judgment and grant, in part, of Brown's motion for summary judgment. After reviewing the

record, the Court will adopt the Report.

Civil Rule 72(b) governs review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

De novo review of the magistrate judge's findings is only required if the parties "serve and

file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b)(2).

Because neither Brown nor the Commissioner filed objections, de novo review of the

Report is not required. Having reviewed the Report's analysis, in light of the record, the

Court finds that its conclusions are factually based and legally sound. Accordingly, it will

adopt the Report's findings, deny the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, grant

in part and deny in part Brown's motion for summary judgment, and remand the case for

further proceedings consistent with the Report.

ORDER

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation (document no. 18) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment

(document no. 16) is DENIED.

2

2:15-cv-12494-SJM-DRG Doc # 19 Filed 08/10/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1312
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brown's Motion for Summary Judgment (document

no. 13) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is REMANDED for further proceedings

consistent with the Report.

SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: August 10, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on August 10, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol Cohron 

Case Manager

3

2:15-cv-12494-SJM-DRG Doc # 19 Filed 08/10/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1313