Fuller v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 14

ORDER Adopting the Recommendation Contained in the Magistrate Judge's 13 Report and Recommendation Dated March 20, 2014, Denying Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Summary Judgment, Granting Defendant's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment, Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 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

SHEILA FULLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 13-CV-11994
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH

COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
______________________/
ORDER
(1) ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 13) DATED MARCH 20, 2014,
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 9), (3)
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 12), (4)
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
and (5) 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 March 20, 2014 (Dkt. 13). In the R&R, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 9) be denied,
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 12) be granted, and the findings of the
Commissioner of Social Security be affirmed.
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 denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 9), grants
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 12), affirms the decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security, and dismisses the case with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 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 25, 2014.
s/Deborah J. Goltz
DEBORAH J. GOLTZ
Case Manager

2