From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jul 28, 2015
Case No. 14-13029 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 28, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 14-13029

07-28-2015

Elisha Hill, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [17]

This matter comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's June 9, 2015 Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 17.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied, that Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted, and that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. Plaintiff timely filed an objection on June 22, 2015. (Dkt. 18.) Defendant responded on June 29, 2015. (Dkt. 19.)

Being fully advised in the premises, having reviewed the pleadings, including Plaintiff's objection, de novo, the Court finds no reason to depart from the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

S/Nancy G. Edmunds

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge
Dated: July 28, 2015 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on July 28, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Carol J. Bethel

Case Manager


Summaries of

Hill v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jul 28, 2015
Case No. 14-13029 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 28, 2015)
Case details for

Hill v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Case Details

Full title:Elisha Hill, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

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

Date published: Jul 28, 2015

Citations

Case No. 14-13029 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 28, 2015)

Citing Cases

Sailing v. Colvin

The ALJ, however, explained at the end of her step-three analysis that the limitations in the "paragraph B"…