Opinion
Case No. 17-12346
09-07-2018
THERESA HAIRSTON, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [13] GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [11] AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [10]
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis' August 23, 2018, Report and Recommendation. (R. 13.) At the Report's conclusion, Magistrate Judge Dawkins Davis notified the parties that they were required to file any objections within fourteen days of service, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d), and that "[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal." (R. 13, PageID.579.) It is now September 7, 2018. As such, the time to file objections has expired. No objections have been filed.
The Court finds that the parties' failure to object is a procedural default, waiving review of the Magistrate Judge's findings by this Court. In United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981), the Sixth Circuit established a rule of procedural default, holding that "a party shall file objections with the district court or else waive right to appeal." And in Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 144 (1985), the Supreme Court explained that the Sixth Circuit's waiver-of-appellate-review rule rested on the assumption "that the failure to object may constitute a procedural default waiving review even at the district court level." 474 U.S. at 149; see also Garrison v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 10-13990, 2012 WL 1278044, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 2012) ("The Court is not obligated to review the portions of the report to which no objection was made." (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149-52)). The Court further held that this rule violates neither the Federal Magistrates Act nor the Federal Constitution.
The Court therefore finds that the parties have waived further review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and accepts her recommended disposition. It follows that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (R. 11) is GRANTED and Hairston's motion for summary judgment is DENIED (R.10). As this resolves all remaining issues, the case will be dismissed.
SO ORDERED. Dated: September 7, 2018
s/Laurie J. Michelson
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on September 7, 2018.
s/Teresa McGovern
Case Manager Generalist