Santos v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: February 27, 2025
• Docket: 4:23-cv-12979
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

MIRIAN S., Plaintiff, Case No. 23-12979 Honorable Shalina D. Kumar v. Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 15); GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 11); DENYING COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 13); AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff Mirian S. appeals the final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”), who denied her application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under the Social Security Act. ECF No. 1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court referred all pretrial matters in the case to the magistrate judge. ECF No. 10. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 11, 13. On October 8, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). The R&R recommends that plaintiff’s motion be Page 1 of 3 granted in part; the Commissioner’s motion be denied; and this matter be remanded to the Social Security Administration (“SSA” or “the

Administration”) under sentence four of § 405(g). Id. The parties have not filed objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The failure to file a timely

objection to an R&R constitutes a waiver of the right to further judicial review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when

neither party objects to those findings.”); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373-1374 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Cephas v.

Nash, 328 F.3d, 108 (2d Cir. 2003) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge’s report waives further judicial review of the point.”); Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (“As to the parts of the report and recommendation

to which no party has objected, the Court need not conduct a review by any standard.”) However, there is some authority that a district court is required to review the R&R for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory

Page 2 of 3 Committee Note Subdivision (b) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

record in order to accept the recommendation.”) Therefore, the Court, having reviewed the R&R and finding no clear error, ADOPTS the recommendation.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 11); DENIES the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13); and REMANDS this matter to the SSA with instructions for the Administration to explicitly consider the consultants’

prior administrative medical finding that plaintiff cannot “repetitively” handle objects with her right hand.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Shalina D. Kumar SHALINA D. KUMAR Dated: February 27, 2025 United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3