Cameron v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 23

ORDER granting 21 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 22 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRENT CAMERON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 14-11622
v.
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dkt. # 22)
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. # 21)
Plaintiff Brent Cameron (“Cameron”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
405(g) to appeal the denial of Social Security disability benefits made by the
Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”). The Appeals Council denied
Cameron’s request for review of the decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) on February 26, 2014. The ALJ’s December 12, 2012 decision stands as the
Commissioner’s final decision.
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis. While
the parties had originally filed cross-motions for summary judgment, Cameron’s counsel
was ordered to withdraw from the representation and both motions were stricken.
Magistrate Judge Davis set new deadlines for filing summary judgment motions. After
Cameron failed to file a motion for summary judgment by that date, the Commissioner
renewed its motion for summary judgment pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order.
Cameron did not file a response.
Magistrate Judge Davis issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
1

recommending that the Court grant the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
At the conclusion of her R&R, Magistrate Judge Davis 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." (Dkt. # 22 at 17.). Cameron has not filed an objection to the R&R.
The Court ordinarily reviews de novo a Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation on a dispositive motion. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P.
72(b)(3). But, when no objections are filed, a district judge is not required to review a
magistrate's report. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152, 106 S. Ct. 466, 473, 88 L. Ed.
2d 435 (1985). In United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981), the
Sixth Circuit established a rule of procedural default, holding that “a party shall file
objections with the district court or else waive right to appeal.” In Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 144 (1985), the Supreme Court held that this rule violates neither the Federal
Magistrates Act nor the United States Constitution. As a result, Cameron’s “failure to
object is a procedural default, waiving his right for this Court to review the report and
recommendation.” See, e.g., Campanaro v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 14-cv-12876,
2015 WL 5014592, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2015).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Davis’s Report and
Recommendation: Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.

2

IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: March 29, 2016
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record and Brent Cameron by electronic
means or U.S. Mail on March 29, 2016.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

3