Long v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Order Adopting 16 Report and Recommendation. The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED. Judge David A. Ruiz on 9/16/2022. (C,TA)
Case: 1:20-cv-02857-DAR Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/16/22 1 of 3. PageID #: 708
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
CASE NO. 1:20-cv-02857
JUDGE DAVID A. RUIZ
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
William H. Baughman, Jr. (R. 16).1 Plaintiff Cynthia Long filed her Complaint (R. 1) on
December 29, 2020, challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
denying her application for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits.
Magistrate Judge Baughman issued his Report and Recommendation on August 29, 2022,
recommending the Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision. (R. 16). “Within 14 days after
being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific
written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.3(b). Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the
Report and Recommendation.
I. Standard of Review for a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
The applicable standard of review of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
This case was referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to Local Rule 72.2.
Case: 1:20-cv-02857-DAR Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/16/22 2 of 3. PageID #: 709
depends upon whether objections were made to that report. When objections are made to a report
and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court reviews the case de novo. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3) states:
Resolving Objections. The district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
The text of Rule 72(b)(3) addresses only the review of reports to which objections have
been made, but does not specify any standard of review for those reports to which no objections
have lodged. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules commented on a district court’s review of
unopposed reports by magistrate judges. In regard to subsection (b) of Rule 72, the Advisory
Committee stated: “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72 Advisory Committee’s notes (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206
(9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879)).
“In the Sixth Circuit, failure to object constitutes a forfeiture.” Schuster v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec. Admin., 2022 WL 219327, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 25, 2022) (Lioi, J.) (citing Berkshire
v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (“We clarify that forfeiture, rather than waiver, is
the relevant term here.”)); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (holding that the
Sixth Circuit’s waiver/forfeiture rule is within its supervisory powers and “[t]here is no
indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to
review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed”). Here, the Report and
Recommendation placed the parties on notice as to the potential for forfeiture in the event of
failure to object. (R. 16, PageID# 707).
Case: 1:20-cv-02857-DAR Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/16/22 3 of 3. PageID #: 710
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, finds no clear error,
and agrees with the findings set forth therein. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (R. 16) is hereby ADOPTED, and the Commissioner’s decision is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ David A. Ruiz
David A. Ruiz
United States District Judge
Date: September 16, 2022
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?