Sherwood v. Social Security, Commissioner of
Filing
16
ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation 15 , Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 14 , and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 12 . Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (EPar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICHARD S.1
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 23-12485
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [15],
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[14], AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [12]
Richard S. applied for disability insurance benefits in 2021 due to a number of
conditions, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, i.e., lung
disease), degenerative bone disease of the lower back and hip, left lung removal,
Schamberg disease (chronic discoloration of skin), and nerve/tendon damage to his
right foot. (ECF No. 6-1, PageID.196.) The Commissioner of Social Security denied
Richard’s claim, and Richard now seeks judicial review of that denial under 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). (ECF No. 1.) On August 9, 2024, Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman
issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) to grant the Commissioner’s
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14), affirm the Administrative Law Judge’s
The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the
Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended that, due to significant
privacy concerns in social security cases, federal courts should refer to claimants only
by their first names and last initials.
1
decision denying Richard’s claim, and deny Richard’s motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 12).
At the conclusion of her Report and Recommendation, Judge Altman notified
the parties that they were required to file any objections within 14 days of service,
pursuant to 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 15, PageID.706.) That deadline has passed 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, 149 (1985), the
Supreme Court explained that the Sixth Circuit’s waiver-of-appellate-review rule
rested on the assumption “that the failure to object may constitute a procedural
default waiving review even at the district court level.” 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 Supreme Court further held
that this rule does not violate either the Federal Magistrates Act or the federal
Constitution. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 155. And “although exceptional circumstances may
warrant departure from this forfeiture rule in the interests of justice, no such
2
circumstances are present in this case.” White v. AJM Packaging Corp., No. 23-1618,
2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5824, at *4 (6th Cir. Mar. 11, 2024) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S.
at 155; Keeling v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., 673 F.3d 452, 458 (6th Cir. 2012)).
The Court therefore finds that the parties have waived further review of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) and adopts the
recommended disposition. It follows that the Commissioner’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED and Richard’s motion for summary judgement
(ECF No. 12) is DENIED. A separate judgment will follow.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 28, 2024
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?