Sadewasser, Jr. v. Kijakazi

Filing 20

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation 19 , Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 13 , and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 11 . Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (EPar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DALE S.1
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 22-13030
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Mag. Judge David R. Grand

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [19],
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[13], AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [11]
Dale S. applied for disability insurance benefits in 2018 due to a number of
conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder, severe depressive disorder, and
insomnia. (ECF No. 8-2, PageID.33; ECF No. 8-3, PageID.90.) The Commissioner of
Social Security denied Dale’s claim, and Dale now seeks judicial review of that denial
under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 1.) On March 12, 2024, Chief Magistrate Judge
David R. Grand issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19) to grant the
Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13), affirm the
Administrative Law Judge’s decision denying Dale’s claim, and deny Dale’s motion
for summary judgment (ECF No. 11).

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

At the conclusion of his Report and Recommendation, Judge Grand notified the
parties that they were required to file any objections within fourteen 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 “only the specific objections to this report and
recommendation are preserved for appeal; all other objections are waived.” (ECF 19,
PageID.3019.) 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
circumstances are present in this case.” White v. AJM Packaging Corp., No. 23-1618,

2

2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5824, at *4 (6th Cir. March 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. 19) and accepts the
recommended disposition. It follows that the Commissioner’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED and Dale’s motion for summary judgement
(ECF No. 11) is DENIED. A separate judgment will follow.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 27, 2024
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3