Rivard v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 34

ORDER Accepting 33 Report and Recommendation re 32 Motion for Summary Judgment; 31 Motion for Summary Judgment, Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MATTHEW Z. RIVARD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-12665
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [33], GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [31] AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [32]
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’s January 11, 2019 Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 33.) At the conclusion, Magistrate Judge Morris 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.” (ECF No.
33, PageID.616.) It is now January 29, 2019. As such, the time to file objections has expired. No
objections have been filed.
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 her recommended disposition. It follows that the Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED and the Commissioner’s motion (ECF No. 32) is
DENIED. The matter is remanded to the Commission under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: January 30, 2019

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the
attorneys and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on January 30, 2019.
s/William Barkholz
Case Manager to
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

2