Frazier v. Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER Regarding Report and Recommendation 16 , GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 11 and DENYING Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 14 . Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (KJac)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LILLIAN C. FRAZIER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-11363
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [16],
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [11], AND
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [14]
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s Report and
Recommendation. (R. 16.) At the conclusion of her June 26, 2017 Report and Recommendation,
Magistrate Judge Stafford notified the parties that they were required to file any objections
within 14 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.” (R. 16, PID 487.) It is now July 11, 2017. As such, the
time to file objections has expired. And no objections have been filed.
The Court finds that the parties’ failure to object is a procedural default, waiving review
of the Magistrate Judge’s findings by this Court. 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 in Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 144 (1985), the Supreme Court explained that the Sixth Circuit’s waiver-ofappellate-review rule rested on the assumption “that the failure to object may constitute a
procedural default waiving review even at the district court level.” 474 U.S. at 149; see also

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 further held that this rule violates
neither the Federal Magistrates Act nor the Federal Constitution.
The Court therefore finds that the parties have waived further review of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and accepts her recommended disposition. It follows that this Court GRANTS
Frazier’s motion for summary judgment (R. 11), DENIES the Commissioner’s (R. 14), and
REMANDS for further consideration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). As this
order resolves this litigation, a separate judgment will issue.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2017

s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties via the Court=s ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 11, 2017.
s/Keisha Jackson
Case Manager

2