Hanke v. King

• Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
• Decided: February 21, 2025
• Docket: 4:23-cv-03208
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

ACE HANKE,

Plaintiff, 4:23CV3208

vs. ORDER MICHELLE A. KING, Acting Commissioner of Social Security;

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 33.), recommending that the plaintiff’s motion for an order reversing the Commissioner’s decision (Filing No. 23.) be denied, and the Commissioner’s motion for an order affirming the Commissioner’s decision (Filing No. 25.) be granted. Neither party has objected to the Findings and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); NECivR 72.2. The parties were expressly advised, “A party may object to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation by filing an objection within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of the findings and recommendation. NECivR 72.2. Failure to timely object may constitute a waiver of any objection.” (Filing No. 33 at 22.) Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) provides for de novo review of a Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations only when a party objects to them. Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991.) A party’s failure to file an objection to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, therefore, waives not only de novo review, “but any review by the Court.” Ramos v. Farmers Ins. (NWL), 586 F.Supp.3d 968, 969 (D.Neb. 2022) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-51, 106 S.Ct. 466 (1985); United States v. Wise, 588 F.3d 531, 537 n.5 (8th Cir. 2009); Daley v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 415 F.3d 889, 893 (8" Cir. 2005)). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is adopted, and any objection is deemed waived. IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 33.) is adopted. 2. The plaintiff’s motion for an order reversing the Commissioner’s decision (Filing No. 23.) is denied. 3. The Commissioner’s motion for an order affirming the Commissioner’s decision (Filing No. 25.) is granted. 4. Aseparate judgment will be entered. Dated this 21st day of February, 2025.

BY THE COURT: 4) ,

SusanM.Bazis VW United States District Judge