Richard A. Meyer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Sixth Circuit

Richard A. Meyer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

849 F.2d 609, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8592, 1988 WL 62431

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 21, 1988

Docket86-1741

StatusUnpublished

This text of 849 F.2d 609 (Richard A. Meyer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) 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

Richard A. Meyer v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 849 F.2d 609, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8592, 1988 WL 62431 (6th Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

849 F.2d 609

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Richard A. MEYER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 86-1741.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 21, 1988.

Before MILBURN, RALPH B. GUY, Jr. and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Defendant-appellee Secretary of Health and Human Services ("Secretary") moves to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that plaintiff waived his right to appellate review by not objecting to the magistrate's report and recommendation to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff admits that his failure to file objections has waived his right to appeal, but urges this court, in the interest of saving judicial resources, to remand this case to the Secretary for consideration of "new material evidence."

In United States v. Walters, 629 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981), this circuit established "that a party must file timely objections with the district court to avoid waiving appellate review." Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers, Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir.1987) (emphasis in original). See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). As plaintiff has made no attempt to justify his failure to comply with this requirement, we will not review the proceedings below. Whether the district court relied on the magistrate's report and recommendation in dismissing the action is irrelevant.

Moreover, plaintiff's request for a remand because of new evidence has already been considered and denied by this court in an order dated August 3, 1987. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Secretary's motion to dismiss be and it hereby is GRANTED.

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

849 F.2d 609

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Richard A. MEYER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 86-1741.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 21, 1988.

Before MILBURN, RALPH B. GUY, Jr. and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Defendant-appellee Secretary of Health and Human Services ("Secretary") moves to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that plaintiff waived his right to appellate review by not objecting to the magistrate's report and recommendation to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff admits that his failure to file objections has waived his right to appeal, but urges this court, in the interest of saving judicial resources, to remand this case to the Secretary for consideration of "new material evidence."

In United States v. Walters, 629 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981), this circuit established "that a party must file timely objections with the district court to avoid waiving appellate review." Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers, Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir.1987) (emphasis in original). See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). As plaintiff has made no attempt to justify his failure to comply with this requirement, we will not review the proceedings below. Whether the district court relied on the magistrate's report and recommendation in dismissing the action is irrelevant.

Moreover, plaintiff's request for a remand because of new evidence has already been considered and denied by this court in an order dated August 3, 1987. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Secretary's motion to dismiss be and it hereby is GRANTED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

849 F.2d 609, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 8592, 1988 WL 62431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-a-meyer-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-ca6-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack