Sutton v. BERRYHILL

Filing 15

ORDER Accepting 14 Report and Recommendation, Denying 12 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Denise Sutton, and Granting 13 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by NANCY A BERRYHILL. Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DENISE SUTTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-10815
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [14], GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [13] AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [12]
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s October 18, 2018, Report and
Recommendation. (R. 14.) At the conclusion, 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. 14, PageID.484.)
It is now November 5, 2018. 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 his recommended disposition. It follows that the Commissioner’s
motion for summary judgment (R. 13) is GRANTED and the Plaintiff’s motion (R. 12) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: November 5, 2018

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
and/or pro se parties on this date, November 5, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

2