McClain v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 16

ORDER (1) Accepting the Recommendation Contained in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Dated January 29, 2015 15 , (2) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 10 , and (3) Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 14 . Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (JCur)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SILVIA McCLAIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 13-CV-14416
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
____________________/
ORDER
(1) ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED JANUARY 29, 2015 (Dkt. 15),
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 10), AND
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 14)
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris, issued on January 29, 2015. In the R&R, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 10) be denied and
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 14) be granted.
The parties have not filed objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The failure to file a timely objection to an R&R constitutes a waiver of
the right to further judicial review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not
appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those
findings.”); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373-1374 (6th Cir. 1987)
(failure to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Cephas v. Nash,
328 F.3d 98, 108 (2d Cir. 2003) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or

omission in a magistrate judge’s report waives further judicial review of the point.”); Lardie v.
Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (“As to the parts of the report and
recommendation to which no party has objected, the Court need not conduct a review by any
standard.”). However, there is some authority that a district court is required to review the R&R
for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee Note Subdivision (b) (“When no
timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). Therefore, the Court has reviewed the
R&R for clear error. On the face of the record, the Court finds no clear error and accepts the
recommendation.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 10) is denied and
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 14) is granted.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2015
Detroit, Michigan

s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge

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 February 19, 2015.
s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams
Case Manager

2