Booth v. Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER Accepting Report and Recommendation 17 , Granting Booth's Motion for Summary Judgment 13 , and Denying the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment 15 . Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (EKar)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JENNIFER L. BOOTH, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 19-10824 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford ANDREW W. SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Defendant. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [17], GRANTING BOOTH’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [13], AND DENYING THE COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [15] Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s August 27, 2020, Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 17.) At the conclusion of her report, Magistrate Judge Stafford notified the parties that they were required to file any objections within 14 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. 17, PageID.1069–1070.) To date, the time to file objections has expired and 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 United States Constitution. The Court therefore finds that the parties have waived further review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and accepts her recommended disposition. Accordingly, Plaintiff Booth’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED and Defendant Commissioner’s motion (ECF No. 15) is DENIED. This matter is REMANDED to the Administrative Law Judge for further consideration under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). SO ORDERED. Dated: September 14, 2020 s/Laurie J. Michelson LAURIE J. MICHELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?