Jones v. Social Security

Filing 18

OPINION & ORDER (1) Accepting the Recommendation Contained in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation Dated December 18, 2020 (Dkt. 17 ), (2) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 11 ), and (3) Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 14 ). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K)

Case 2:19-cv-12734-MAG-EAS ECF No. 18, PageID.670 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PLAINTIFF DRAKE A. JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 19-CV-12734
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH

DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
____________________/
OPINION & ORDER
(1) ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED DECEMBER 18, 2020
(Dkt. 17), (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Dkt. 11), AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (Dkt. 14)
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford, issued on December 18, 2020 (Dkt. 17). In the R&R, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff Drake Jones’s motion for summary
judgment (Dkt. 11) and grant Defendant the Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for
summary judgment (Dkt. 14).
The parties have not filed objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The failure to file a timely objection to an R&R constitutes a waiver of
the right to further judicial review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not
appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those
findings.”); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373-1374 (6th Cir. 1987)

Case 2:19-cv-12734-MAG-EAS ECF No. 18, PageID.671 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 2

(failure to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Cephas v. Nash,
328 F.3d 98, 108 (2d Cir. 2003) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or
omission in a magistrate judge’s report waives further judicial review of the point.”); Lardie v.
Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (“As to the parts of the report and
recommendation to which no party has objected, the Court need not conduct a review by any
standard.”). However, there is some authority that a district court is required to review the R&R
for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee Note Subdivision (b) (“When no
timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). Therefore, the Court has reviewed the
R&R for clear error. On the face of the record, the Court finds no clear error and accepts the
recommendation.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 11) is denied. The
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 14) is granted.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2021
Detroit, Michigan

s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge

2