Hudson v. Social Security
ORDER (1) Adopting the Recommendation Contained in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Dated January 31, 2018 (Dkt. 15 ), (2) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 12 ), and (3) Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 13 ). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 16-cv-12999
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
(1) ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED JANUARY 31, 2018 (Dkt. 15),
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 12), AND
(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 13)
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of
Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis, issued on January 31, 2018 (Dkt. 15). In the R&R,
the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff Crystal Hudson’s motion for
summary judgment (Dkt. 12), and grant Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for
summary judgment (Dkt. 13).
The parties have not filed objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The failure to file a timely objection to an R&R constitutes a waiver of
the right to further judicial review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not
appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”);
Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373-4 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to file objection
to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 1078 (2d Cir.
2003) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate
judge’s report waives further judicial review of the point.”); Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d
806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (“As to the parts of the report and recommendation to which no party
has objected, the Court need not conduct a review by any standard.”). There is some authority that
a district court is required to review the R&R for clear error, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory
Committee Note Subdivision (b) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).
Therefore, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error. On the face of the record, the Court
finds no clear error and adopts the recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 12), and
grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 13).
Dated: March 9, 2018
s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States 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 March 9, 2018.
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?