Report and Recommendation

Motion for Summary Judgment/Motion to Remand

1 Rousell v. Comm’r; Case No. 09-13451

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FRANCINE ROUSELL, Case No. 09-13451

Plaintiff, Sean F. Cox

vs. United States District Judge

COMMISSIONER OF Michael Hluchaniuk

SOCIAL SECURITY, United States Magistrate Judge

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 16)

AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REMAND (Dkt. 19)

This matter is before the Court on a Complaint for judicial review following

an adverse decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The Complaint was

filed on September 1, 2009, and referred to the undersigned for all pretrial

purposes. (Dkt. 1, 3). On May 5, 2010, plaintiff filed a letter, which the Court

construed as her motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 16). 

On June 30, 2010, defendant filed a motion to remand this matter. (Dkt. 19). 

In that motion, defendant indicated that plaintiff concurred with the relief

requested, but that because plaintiff was not represented by counsel, defendant

determined that seeking a stipulation may not be appropriate. (Dkt. 19). The

undersigned issued an order requiring plaintiff to respond to defendant’s motion to
Report and Recommendation

Motion for Summary Judgment/Motion to Remand

2 Rousell v. Comm’r; Case No. 09-13451

remand by August 2, 2010. (Dkt. 20). In that order, the Court noted that a failure

to file a response could result in sanctions, including granting all or part of the

relief requested by the moving party. (Dkt. 20). Plaintiff has not responded to the

motion to remand.

Given that (1) plaintiff appears to have consented to the remand requested

by the government; (2) plaintiff did not respond to the motion to remand as

ordered; and (3) the relief requested by the government is favorable to plaintiff, the

undersigned RECOMMENDS that defendant’s motion to remand this matter be

GRANTED and that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be DENIED as

moot.

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

Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service,

as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule

72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right

of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that 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

and 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 Local Rule
Report and Recommendation

Motion for Summary Judgment/Motion to Remand

3 Rousell v. Comm’r; Case No. 09-13451

72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.

Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” “Objection No. 2,”

etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an

objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the

objections in length and complexity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), Local Rule 72.1(d). 

The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the

same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to Objection

No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may

rule without awaiting the response.

s/Michael Hluchaniuk 

Date: September 9, 2010 Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on September 9, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send electronic

notification to the following: Judith E. Levy, AUSA, and the Commissioner of

Social Security, and I certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the

paper to the following non-ECF participant(s): Francine Rousell, 5173 Belvidere,

Detroit, MI 48213.

s/Darlene Chubb 

Judicial Assistant

(810) 341-7850

darlene_chubb@mied.uscourts.gov