Rider v. Social Security

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 15 and DENYING Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 18 . Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (KJac)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CANDY S. RIDER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-13354
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [15] AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [18]
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s Report and Recommendation. (R.
22.) At the conclusion of his August 23, 2017 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge
Grand notified the parties that they were required to file any objections within fourteen 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. 22, PID 606–07.) No objections have been filed. As it is now September 7,
2017, the time to file objections has expired.
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 his recommended disposition. It follows that Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment (R. 15) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED in part, and Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment (R. 18) is DENIED. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 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 September 7, 2017.
s/Keisha Jackson
Case Manager

2