Tabor v. Colvin

Filing 13

ORDER Accepting 12 Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Action. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (SBur)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RYAN PATRICK TABOR,
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No. 16-11273
Honorable Denise Page Hood

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING ACTION
This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’s
Report and Recommendation. [#12] Plaintiff Ryan Patrick Tabor filed this action on
April 7, 2016, asking this Court to review the Commissioner’s final decision to deny
his application for disability insurance benefits. On August 5, 2016, the Magistrate
Judge ordered the parties to file their motions and briefs pursuant to a Scheduling
Order—Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was to be filed on or before
September 6, 2016. [#10]
When Plaintiff failed to timely file his motion for summary judgment, the
Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, no later than September
21, 2016, why his cause of action should not be recommended for dismissal for want

of prosecution. [#11] Plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause by
September 21, 2016 (and still has not done so). Accordingly, on September 26, 2016,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, in which she recommends
that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s cause of action, with prejudice, for want of
prosecution. Neither party filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to
determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in reaching
his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The credibility
findings of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) must not be discarded lightly and
should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court’s review of an ALJ’s
decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve conflicts in the
evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at 397. The decision
of the Commissioner must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even
if the record might support a contrary decision or if the district court arrives at a
different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d 106, 108 (6th Cir. 1984);
Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).
The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the
Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusion, for the proper reasons, that this
2

matter should be dismissed, and the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation
with respect to her recommendation that Plaintiff’s cause of action be dismissed. As
neither party has raised an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court
finds that the parties have waived any objections to the Report and Recommendation,
to the extent that it recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s cause of action. Smith v.
Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (a party’s
failure to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal); Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
In reviewing the record in this case, the Court finds that the reason for dismissal
is the failure of Plaintiff–through his legal counsel–to file a motion for summary
judgment. As the basis for dismissal is procedural and apparently not attributable to
the merits of Plaintiff’s disability claim (or attributable to any fault of Plaintiff
himself), the Court finds that the interests of justice favor dismissal of Plaintiff’s cause
of action without prejudice.
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 12, filed
September 26, 2016] is ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions
of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
3

prejudice.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: October 18, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on October 18, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4