Hassan v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 22

ORDER for Response to Objections as to the Report and Recommendation ( Response due by 2/8/2015) Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TARIE HASSAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 14-14407

COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant.
/
ORDER FOR RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS
Plaintiff on December 21, 2015, filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation in the above-entitled matter. Plaintiff argues that the court
should not adopt the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, and the case should be
remanded for an award of benefits or further proceedings. Defendant was directed by
the magistrate judge to file a response to objections within fourteen days of Defendant’s
receipt of objections, commensurate in length and complexity with any such objections.
The court received “Defendant’s Response” (Dkt. # 21), which was filed very
promptly, only one day after the Plaintiff’s filing. The court notes, however, that it does
not, in fact, respond to the four stated objections. The response, in its entirety, says that
“[f]or the reasons stated both in the RR and defendant’s brief to the Magistrate Judge,
plaintiff’s arguments are without merit.”
While this observation may be revealed ultimately as a correct assessment, it is
singularly unhelpful in attempting to evaluate the Report and Recommendation. It is a
1

dismissive statement that shirks a litigant’s opportunity —responsibility, more
accurately— to assist the court in assessing the arguments presented. The court is
keenly aware of the burgeoning caseload of Social Security Disability claims, and the
time pressures under which attorneys in the Department of Justice must operate. The
court commonly grants reasonable extensions of time when asked; the court does not
expect law review articles in response to meritless objections; the court regularly
chastens objecting parties when they cast patently meritless “objections” as “relying on
the arguments presented in the briefs,” etc. Upon initial review of the objections, this
does not appear to be such a case. The court does not intend to study the case
independently any further in the absence of Defendant’s reaction. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant file a written response, addressing specifically,
and in the same order raised, each issue contained within the objections. Such
response must be filed not later than February 8, 2016.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 18, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, January 18, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\14-14407.HASSAN.Order requiring D's response to R&R objections-HHS.RHC.wpd

2