Edwards v. Social Security

Filing 11

ORDER (1) Adopting Recommended Disposition of 10 Report and Recommendation and (2) Dismissing 1 Complaint Without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVON REYNOLDS EDWARDS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-10536
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #10) AND (2) DISMISSING
COMPLAINT (ECF #1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE
In this action, Plaintiff Davon Reynolds Edwards challenges the denial of his
application for disability income benefits. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Edwards, who is
represented by counsel, filed his Complaint on February 14, 2018. (See id.)
However, there is no indication that Edwards ever served his Complaint upon
Defendant Commissioner of Social Security.
On May 18, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued an order that required
Edwards to show cause why the Court should not dismiss his Complaint due to his
failure to serve the Commissioner. (See ECF #6.) Edwards responded to that order
by asking for an extension of time to serve his Complaint. (See ECF #7.) The
Magistrate Judge granted that extension and required Edwards to serve his
1

Complaint on the Commissioner by no later than July 4, 2018. (See ECF #8 at Pg.
ID 24.)
It does not appear that Edwards complied with the Magistrate Judge’s order
or that he ever served his Complaint upon the Commissioner. Accordingly, on
August 8, 2018, the Magistrate issued a second show cause order that again required
Edwards to show cause why the Court should not dismiss his Complaint. (See ECF
#9.) Edwards did not respond to that show cause order. The Magistrate thereafter
issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended that the Court
dismiss Edwards’ Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)1 due to
lack of service (the “R&R”). (See ECF #10.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the
Magistrate Judge told Edwards that if he wanted to seek review of his
recommendation, Edwards needed to file specific objections with the Court within
fourteen days. (See id. at Pg. ID 32.)
Edwards has not filed any objections to the R&R. The failure to object to an
R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). In addition, the failure to file objections
to an R&R waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health and

1

In relevant part, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: “If a defendant is
not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its
own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against
that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”
2

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers
Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Finally, Edwards has neither
responded to the Magistrate Judge’s August 8, 2018, show cause order nor provided
any proof to the Court that he ever served his Complaint upon the Commissioner.
Accordingly, because Edwards has not filed an objection to the R&R, and
because he has not complied with the Magistrate Judge’s orders to serve his
Complaint on the Commissioner, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation to dismiss Edwards’ Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 4(m) is ADOPTED and Edwards’ Complaint (ECF #1) is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 15, 2018

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on October 15, 2018, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3