UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID ZANON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. CASE NO. 08-CV-15337

COMMISSIONER OF DISTRICT JUDGE AVERN COHN

SOCIAL SECURITY, MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

Defendant. 

___________________________/ 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(b)(3), and by Notice of

Reference, this case was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for the purpose of reviewing

the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for a period of disability and disability

insurance benefits. Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order, Plaintiff filed a Motion for

Summary Judgement and Motion to Remand on April 14, 2009. (Doc. 11.) On July 13, 2009,

Defendant filed a Motion to Remand. (Doc. 16.) On July 21, 2009, Plaintiff filed a response to

Defendant’s Motion to Remand indicating that he “does not object to Defendant’s Motion and

Brief to Remand filed July 13, 2009, and requests that this Court grant his motion and order

remanding this case pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” (Doc. 17 at 1.)

Defendant’s motion indicated that remand was needed to allow the Administrative Law Judge to

consider “updated records from treating sources; further assess Plaintiff’s credibility; further

evaluate Plaintiff’s mental impairments, further evaluate Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity;

and to obtain supplemental vocational expert testimony.” (Doc. 16 at 1.) The parties therefore

have, in substance, stipulated to remand the case for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth

sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

2:08-cv-15337-AC-CEB Doc # 18 Filed 09/17/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 434
2

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the

Commissioner’s decision be REVERSED and the case REMANDED to the Commissioner for

further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

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

within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure

to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596

(6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005). The parties are

advised that making some objections, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all the objections

a party may have to this Report and Recommendation. McClanahan, 474 F.3d at 837; Frontier

Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is

to be served upon this Magistrate Judge. 

Within ten (10) days of service of any objecting party’s timely filed objections, the

opposing party may file a response. The response shall be concise, but commensurate in detail

with the objections, and shall address specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue

contained within the objections.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: September 17, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

2:08-cv-15337-AC-CEB Doc # 18 Filed 09/17/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 435
3

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date and

electronically served on counsel of record via the Court’s ECF System.

Date: September 17, 2009 By s/Patricia T. Morris 

Law Clerk to Magistrate Judge Binder

2:08-cv-15337-AC-CEB Doc # 18 Filed 09/17/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 436