Hudson v. Social Security

Filing 16

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)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CRYSTAL HUDSON, Plaintiff, Case No. 16-cv-12999 vs. HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ____________________ / 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) 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. 1 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). SO ORDERED.   Dated: March 9, 2018 Detroit, Michigan 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. s/Karri Sandusky Case Manager 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?