Harvey v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 18

ORDER Denying 15 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Commissioner of Social Security, Granting 13 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Corey Harvey, and Remanding for Further Proceedings - Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (JJoh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
COREY HARVEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-cv-14949
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [13],
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [15], AND
REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk’s Report and
Recommendation. (Dkt. 17.) At the conclusion of his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate
Judge Hluchaniuk 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.” (Report & Recommendation at 28.) No objections were
filed.
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” and that “a party shall be informed by the magistrate [judge]
that objections must be filed within ten days or further appeal is waived.” 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 federal constitution. Thus, the Court finds that the parties’ failure to
object is a procedural default, waiving review of the magistrate judge’s findings by this Court.

See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149 (explaining that Sixth Circuit’s waiver-of-appellate-review rule
rested on the assumption “that the failure to object may constitute a procedural default waiving
review even at the district court level”); Garrison v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 10-13990,
2012 WL 1278044, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 2012) (“The Court is not obligated to review the
portions of the report to which no objection was made.” (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149–52)).
The Court therefore finds that the parties have waived further review of the Report and
accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition. It follows that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. 13) is GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Dkt. 15) is DENIED. The Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and this matter shall be
REMANDED for further consideration consistent with the Report and Recommendation,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
SO ORDERED.
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 7, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys
and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on December 7, 2015.
s/Jane Johnson
Case Manager to
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

2