Mayo v. Commissioner of Social Security

Sixth Circuit

Mayo v. Commissioner of Social Security

86 F. App'x 960

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 9, 2004

DocketNo. 03-5689

StatusPublished

This text of 86 F. App'x 960 (Mayo v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mayo v. Commissioner of Social Security, 86 F. App'x 960 (6th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Kenneth J. Mayo, who is represented by counsel, appeals a district court judgment affirming the Commissioner’s denial of his application for social security disability insurance benefits. The parties have waived oral argument and the panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Mayo filed an application for social security disability insurance benefits, alleging that he was disabled due to obesity and an impaired back. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied Mayo’s application for benefits, concluding that Mayo could perform his past relevant work. The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s decision.

Mayo then sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. The case was referred to a magistrate judge who recommended that the complaint be dismissed. Mayo’s attorney did not file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report. Rather, he filed a one sentence document which stated: “Now comes the Plaintiff, Kenneth J. Mayo, Appellant, and objects to the Court Judgment of Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate.” Noting that no specific objections were filed, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and dismissed the case. On appeal, Mayo argues the merits of his social security claim.

Mayo has waived appellate review of his arguments. The ease was referred to a magistrate judge who recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. Mayo was notified that his failure to file specific objections to the magistrate [961]*961judge’s report would constitute a waiver of his claims on appeal. Mayo failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report. Thus. Mayo has waived appellate review of his arguments. See Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir.1995); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th Cir.1991).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Kenneth J. Mayo, who is represented by counsel, appeals a district court judgment affirming the Commissioner’s denial of his application for social security disability insurance benefits. The parties have waived oral argument and the panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Mayo filed an application for social security disability insurance benefits, alleging that he was disabled due to obesity and an impaired back. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied Mayo’s application for benefits, concluding that Mayo could perform his past relevant work. The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s decision.

Mayo then sought judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. The case was referred to a magistrate judge who recommended that the complaint be dismissed. Mayo’s attorney did not file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report. Rather, he filed a one sentence document which stated: “Now comes the Plaintiff, Kenneth J. Mayo, Appellant, and objects to the Court Judgment of Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate.” Noting that no specific objections were filed, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and dismissed the case. On appeal, Mayo argues the merits of his social security claim.

Mayo has waived appellate review of his arguments. The ease was referred to a magistrate judge who recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. Mayo was notified that his failure to file specific objections to the magistrate [961]*961judge’s report would constitute a waiver of his claims on appeal. Mayo failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report. Thus. Mayo has waived appellate review of his arguments. See Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir.1995); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th Cir.1991).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 F. App'x 960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayo-v-commissioner-of-social-security-ca6-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack