Rhoads v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER adopting 13 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 10/28/14. (kn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL E. RHOADS,
Case No. 2:14-cv-318
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King

Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This action seeks review under 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g) of a decision by Defendant, the
Commissioner of Social Security, that denied applications for disability benefits and
supplemental security income filed by Plaintiff, Michael R. Rhoads. In a Report and
Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s
decision and remand the action for further consideration of Listing 12.05C. (ECF No. 13, at
Page ID # 627-28.) The matter is now before the Court for consideration of Defendant’s
objections (ECF No. 14) to these recommendations and Plaintiff’s response (ECF No. 16).
I. Discussion
A. Standard Involved
If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, the Court
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
B. Analysis

1

In her September 15, 2014 Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge provided
the parties express notice of the deadline for filing objections and advised the parties of the
consequences for failing to file objections. (ECF No. 16, at Page ID # 628.) The date of filing of
the Report and Recommendation meant that any party seeking to file objections had to do so
within seventeen days, which was no later than October 2, 2014. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E); S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 5.2(b). Defendant failed to file
objections until October 3, 2014, and did so without obtaining leave of Court permitting the
untimely filing. A consequence of this failure to file timely objections is that this Court need not
address the merits of the untimely objections, but can instead resolve the matter on the grounds
of waiver. Keeling v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., 673 F.3d 452, 458 (6th Cir. 2012). See also
Bosley v. 21 WFMJ Television, Inc., 245 F. App’x 445, 450, 456 (6th Cir. 2007) (noting that a
district court is “under no obligation” to consider untimely objections). Given the lack of good
cause for the late filing, the Court declines to consider the untimely objections.
II. Conclusion
The Court OVERRULES Defendant’s untimely objections (ECF No. 14), ADOPTS and
AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13), REVERSES the decision of the
Commissioner pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and REMANDS the action for
further consideration of Listing 12.05C in accordance with the Report and Recommendation.
The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action on the docket records of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2