Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 14 Joint MOTION to Remand filed by Commissioner of Social Security in that It is RECOMMENDED that the Joint Motion be GRANTED and that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and that this action be remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 1/24/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 1/10/18. (sem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL A. JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:17-cv-606
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The parties have jointly moved to remand the case, pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), for further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 14.)
It is RECOMMENDED that the Joint Motion (id.) be GRANTED and that the decision
of the Commissioner be reversed and that this action be remanded to the Commissioner of Social
Security, pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that
party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and
Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part in
question, as well as the basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that the failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and
waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat=l Latex
Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate
judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district
court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that
defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed,
appellate review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d
981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to
specify the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation
omitted)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 10, 2018

/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2