Wale v. Social Security

Filing 24

ORDER (1) Adopting Recommended Disposition of 23 Report and Recommendation, Denying Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Summary Judgment, and (3) Granting Defendant's 21 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEITH L. WALE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-12211
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #23), (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #16), AND (3) GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #21)
In this action, Plaintiff Keith L. Wale challenges the denial of his application
for disability insurance benefits. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Wale and the Defendant,
the Commissioner of Social Security, have now filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. (See ECF ## 16, 21.)
On August 16, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court grant the
Commissioner’s motion and deny Wale’s motion (the “R&R”). (See ECF #23.) At
the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they
wanted to seek review of her recommendation, they needed to file specific objections
with the Court within fourteen days. (See id. at Pg. ID 1036.)
1

Wale has not filed any objections to the R&R. The failure to file objections
to an R&R waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health and
Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers
Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to
an R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Accordingly, because Wale has failed to file any objections to the R&R, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant the
Commissioner’s motion and deny Wale’s motion is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Wale’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF #16) is DENIED and (2) the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF #21) is GRANTED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 5, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on September 5, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

2