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)

Download PDF
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 (810) 341-9764 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?