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)

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