Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Seach v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division

February 13, 2015

MICHAEL SEACH, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

ORDER (1) ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED JANUARY 13, 2015 (Dkt. 14), (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 9), and (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 13)

MARK A. GOLDSMITH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub, issued on January 13, 2015. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 9) and granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 13).

The parties have not filed objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The failure to file a timely objection to an R&R constitutes a waiver of the right to further judicial review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373-1374 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 108 (2d Cir. 2003) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge’s report waives further judicial review of the point.”); Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F.Supp.2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (“As to the parts of the report and recommendation to which no party has objected, the Court need not conduct a review by any standard.”). However, there is some authority that a district court is required to review the R&R for clear error. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 Advisory Committee Note Subdivision (b) (“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.”). Therefore, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error. On the face of the record, the Court finds no clear error and accepts the recommendation.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 9) is denied, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 13) is granted.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.