Opinion
20-cv-13349
02-11-2022
SAMANTHA NICOLE CLARK, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 14) AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 16)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In this action, Plaintiff Samantha Nicole Clark challenges the denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Clark and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security have now filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (See Mots., ECF Nos. 14, 16.)
On December 29, 2021, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Court deny Clark's motion and grant the Commissioner's motion (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 17.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review of his recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id., PageID.803-804.)
Clark has not filed any objections to the R&R. The failure to object to an R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). In addition, the failure to file objections to an R&R waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, because Clark has failed to file any objections to the R&R, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Clark's Motion for Summary Judgment is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Clark's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) is DENIED and (2) the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED.