Prewitt v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 16

ORDER (1) Accepting The Magistrate Judge's Report And Recommendation Dated August 8, 2014 15 , (2) Denying Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment 14 , (3) Granting Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment 11 , And (4) Remanding For Further Consideration. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (JCur)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RICHARD BERNARD
ALLEN PREWITT,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.
13-CV-12336

vs.
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
___________________________/
ORDER (1) ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION DATED AUGUST 8, 2014 (DKT. 15), (2) DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 14), (3) GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 11), AND (4)
REMANDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder’s Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”), issued on August 8, 2014 (Dkt. 15). In his R&R, the Magistrate Judge concludes that
the Administrative Law Judge’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. R&R at 22.
Therefore, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Dkt. 14) be denied, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 11) be granted, and the case
be remanded to the Commissioner for additional proceedings consistent with the R&R. Id.
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)
1

(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, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 14) is denied,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 11) is granted, and the case is remanded for
further proceedings consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
sentence four.
SO ORDERED.
s:\Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 17, 2014.
Detroit, Michigan

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 September 17, 2014.
s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams
JOHNETTA M. CURRY-WILLIAMS
CASE MANAGER

2