UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LINDA M. HALLER

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-13582

v.

HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder’s Report and

Recommendation [Docket No. 16, filed on August 18, 2010]. On February 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed

a Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 16]. The Defendant filed its Motion for Summary

Judgment on May 19, 2010 [Docket No. 15]. Magistrate Judge Binder issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. The

Magistrate Judge further recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in

part, and the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded for further proceedings under

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation.

The standard of review to be employed by the Court when examining a Report and

Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636. This Court “shall make a de novo determination

of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection

is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To preserve the right to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s

2:09-cv-13582-DPH-CEB Doc # 17 Filed 01/11/11 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 732
2

recommendation, Plaintiff was obligated to file objections to the Report and Recommendation

within ten days of service of copy, as provided in U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).

Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to an appeal. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir.

1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). In this case, no objections have been

made. 

This Court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

by the magistrate.” Id. 

Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to determining whether

the findings of fact made by the Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence, and deciding

whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in reaching his or her conclusion.

Garner v. Heckler, 745 F. 2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The credibility findings of an administrative law

judge (“ALJ”) must not be discarded lightly and should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v.

Secretary of Health and Human Services, 823 F. 2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court’s

review of an ALJ’s decision is not de novo review. The district court may not resolve conflicts in

the evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F. 2d at 397. The decision of the

Commissioner must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, even if the record might support

a contrary decision. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F. 2d 106, 108 (6th Cir. 1989). An

administrative decision must be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence, even if the Court

might arrive at a different conclusion. Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F. 2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986) (quoting

Baker v. Heckler, 730 F. 2d 1147, 1150 (8th Cir. 1984)). 

Upon review of the parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment and the Magistrate Judge’s

2:09-cv-13582-DPH-CEB Doc # 17 Filed 01/11/11 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 733
3

Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge reached the correct

conclusion for the proper reasons. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder’s Report and Recommendation

[Docket No. 16, filed on August 18, 2010] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s findings

and conclusions of law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No.

15, filed on May 19, 2010] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No.

10, filed on February 26, 2010] is GRANTED IN PART. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sentence four, this matter is REMANDED

for 

further administrative proceedings consistent with this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this cause of action is DISMISSED. 

Dated: January 11, 2011 S/DENISE PAGE HOOD 

DENISE PAGE HOOD

United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing document was served upon counsel of record on

January 11, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

S/Shawntel R. Jackson 

Case Manager 

2:09-cv-13582-DPH-CEB Doc # 17 Filed 01/11/11 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 734