Senia-Badden v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 11

ORDER Adopting the Recommendation Contained in the Magistrate Judge's 10 Report and Recommendation Dated January 30, 2014, Granting Defendant's 5 Motion to Dismiss and Dismissing the Case With Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Goltz, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRACY SENIA-BODDEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 13-CV-11840
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH

COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
______________________/
ORDER
(1) ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 10) DATED JANUARY 30, 2014,
(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 5), AND (3)
DISMISSING THE CASE WITH PREJUDICE
This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of
Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder, issued on January 30, 2014 (Dkt. 10). In the R&R, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 5) be granted and the
case be dismissed.
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, 1373-4 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure
to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d
98, 1078 (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.”). 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 adopts the recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 5) and dismisses the
case with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 28, 2014
Flint, Michigan

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

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on April 28, 2014.
s/Deborah J. Goltz
DEBORAH J. GOLTZ
Case Manager

2