UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Marsha B.,
Plaintiff, Case No. 25-13017
v. Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Commissioner of Social Security,
Mag. Judge Patricia T. Morris
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [14],
GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [7], AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [12]
This is a Social Security appeal. On June 16, 2026, Magistrate
Judge Patricia T. Morris issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
14) recommending the Court grant in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 7) and deny Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 12.)
The parties were required to file specific written objections, if any,
within 14 days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. L.R. 72.1(d).
No objections were filed. The Court has nevertheless carefully reviewed
the Report and Recommendation and concurs in the reasoning and result.
Accordingly,
The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) is ADOPTED;
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED
IN PART;
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 12) is
DENIED;
The final decision of the Administrative Law Judge is VACATED;
and,
This case is hereby REMANDED for further proceedings consistent
with the report and recommendation.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 1, 2026 s/Judith E. Levy
Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
1 By failing to object to the Report and Recommendation, the parties have
waived any further right of appeal. United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th
Cir. 2005).
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 1, 2026.
s/Richard Thieme
RICHARD THIEME
Case Manager
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.