UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JADRANKA SAMONA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-CV-11713 

vs. HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

ACTING COMMISSIONER 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

 Defendant. 

____________________/ 

ORDER 

(1) ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED JUNE 24, 2016, 

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 20), 

(3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 22), 

(4) REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER and (5) REMANDING TO 

COMMISSIONER 

 This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti, issued on June 24, 2016. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge 

recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be granted, Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment be denied, and the case remanded to the Commissioner for further 

consideration. 

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) 

2:15-cv-11713-MAG-APP Doc # 25 Filed 07/20/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 881
2 

(failure to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Cephas v. Nash, 

328 F.3d 98, 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 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 has reviewed the 

R&R for clear error. On the face of the record, the Court finds no clear error and accepts the 

recommendation. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. 20) is granted, Defendant’s motion (Dkt. 22) is 

denied. The Commissioner’s decision is reversed and the case is remanded to the Administrative 

Law Judge under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration consistent with 

the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 20, 2016 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 United States District Judge 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and 

any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class 

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 20, 2016. 

 s/Karri Sandusky 

 Case Manager

2:15-cv-11713-MAG-APP Doc # 25 Filed 07/20/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 882