Giddings v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

Full title: CHARICE GIDDINGS, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Aug 30, 2022

5:21-cv-00217 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 30, 2022)

Opinion

5:21-cv-00217

08-30-2022

CHARICE GIDDINGS, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

DAVID A. RUIZ, DISTRICT JUDGE

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DAVID A. RUIZ, DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Darrell A. Clay. (R. 19).^[1] Plaintiff Charice Giddings filed her Complaint (R. 1) on January 28, 2021, challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. Magistrate Judge Clay issued his Report and Recommendation on May 13, 2022, recommending the Court reverse and remand the Commissioner's decision. (R. 19). On May 27, 2022, the Commissioner indicated that she would not file any objections. (R. 20).

[1] This case was referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to Local Rule 72.2.

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 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. 19, PageID# 2559).

II. Conclusion

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. 19) is hereby ADOPTED, the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.