Schaeffer v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Full title: CHERYL ROSE SCHAEFFER, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Feb 24, 2022

20-cv-12620 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 24, 2022)

Opinion

20-cv-12620

02-24-2022

CHERYL ROSE SCHAEFFER, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 15) AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 18)

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In this action, Plaintiff Cheryl Rose Schaeffer challenges the denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) Schaeffer and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security have now filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (See Mots., ECF Nos. 15, 18.)

On February 9, 2021, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court deny Schaeffer's motion and grant the Commissioner's motion (the “R&R”). (See R&R, ECF No. 20.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review of her recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id., PageID.1276-1277.)

Schaeffer 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 Schaeffer 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 Schaeffer's Motion for Summary Judgment is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Schaeffer's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 15) is DENIED and (2) the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED.

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on February 24, 2022, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.

s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126