From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Owens v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 12, 2015
Case No. 2:14-cv-10830 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2015)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Owens, the Magistrate Judge explained, the Court rejected a challenge based on an omission of specific DOT codes on the grounds that the plaintiff's counsel had the opportunity to raise the issue at the administrative hearing and did not do so.

Summary of this case from Baty v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
See 2 Summaries

Opinion

Case No. 2:14-cv-10830

03-12-2015

THOMAS OWENS, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson


Magistrate Judge David R. Grand
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [13], DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [10], AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [12]

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge David R. Grand's Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 13.) At the conclusion of his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Grand notified the parties that they were required to file any objections within fourteen days of service, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d), and that "[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal." (Report & Recommendation at 17.) No objections were filed.

The Court thus ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as the findings of this Court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); Garrison v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 10-cv-13990, 2012 WL 1278044, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 2012) ("The Court is not obligated to review the portions of the report to which no objection was made." (citing Arn, 474 U.S. at 149-52)). It follows that the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 10) and GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 12). A separate judgment follow.

SO ORDERED.

s/Laurie J. Michelson

LAURIE J. MICHELSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 12, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on March 12, 2015.

s/Jane Johnson

Case Manager to

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

Summaries of

Owens v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Mar 12, 2015
Case No. 2:14-cv-10830 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2015)

In Owens, the Magistrate Judge explained, the Court rejected a challenge based on an omission of specific DOT codes on the grounds that the plaintiff's counsel had the opportunity to raise the issue at the administrative hearing and did not do so.

Summary of this case from Baty v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

In Owens, the Plaintiff challenged the ALJ's decision because the ALJ relied on VE testimony that omitted the specific DOT codes.

Summary of this case from Baty v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
Case details for

Owens v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS OWENS, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Mar 12, 2015

Citations

Case No. 2:14-cv-10830 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2015)

Citing Cases

Baty v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Here, the ALJ specifically asked the VE if his testimony was consistent with the DOT, and the VE provided a…

Baty v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Further, the Magistrate pointed out that there is only one readily available job for the occupations of…

2 Citing Cases