UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Before the Court is Executive Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s Report and 

Recommendation. (R. 22.) At the conclusion of his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate 

Judge Whalen notified the parties that they were required to file any objections within fourteen 

days of service, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Eastern District of 

Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d), and that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of 

any further right of appeal.” (Id., PID 486.) No objections were filed. 

In United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981), the Sixth Circuit 

established a rule of procedural default, holding that “a party shall file objections with the district 

court or else waive right to appeal” and that “a party shall be informed by the magistrate [judge] 

that objections must be filed within ten days or further appeal is waived.” In Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 144 (1985), the Supreme Court held that this rule violates neither the Federal 

Magistrates Act nor the federal constitution. Thus, the Court finds that the parties’ failure to 

object is a procedural default, waiving review of the magistrate judge’s findings by this Court. 

See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149 (explaining that Sixth Circuit’s waiver-of-appellate-review rule 

BURUJAH ISMAIL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-12208 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [17], 

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [20], AND 

REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 

2:15-cv-12208-LJM-RSW Doc # 23 Filed 08/29/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 488
2 

rested on the assumption “that the failure to object may constitute a procedural default waiving 

review even at the district court level”); Garrison v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 10-13990, 

2012 WL 1278044, at *8 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 16, 2012) (“The Court is not obligated to review the 

portions of the report to which no objection was made.” (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149–52)). 

The Court therefore finds that the parties have waived further review of the Report and 

accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition. It follows that Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment (Dkt. 17) is GRANTED to the extent it requests a remand for further 

administrative proceedings, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 20) is 

DENIED. The Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and this matter shall be REMANDED 

for further consideration consistent with the Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g). 

 SO ORDERED. 

s/Laurie J. Michelson 

LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 Dated: August 29, 2016 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys 

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on August 29, 2016. 

 s/Jane Johnson 

Case Manager to 

 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

2:15-cv-12208-LJM-RSW Doc # 23 Filed 08/29/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 489