Blakely v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 13

ORDER RE 12 Report and Recommendation: 10 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security Commissioner - GRANTED, and 9 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dwayne Blakely - DENIED Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (JJoh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DWAYNE BLAKELY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-CV-10625
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [10]
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [9]
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’ Report and Recommendation.
(Dkt. 12.) At the conclusion of her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Morris
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 10.) 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 the 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. 9) is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.
10) is GRANTED. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 29, 2016

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 January 29, 2016.
s/Jane Johnson
Case Manager to
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

2