Filed: Mar. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL SARA LIOI , District Judge . Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in the above-entitled action. (Doc. No. 14.) Under the relevant statute: Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL SARA LIOI , District Judge . Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in the above-entitled action. (Doc. No. 14.) Under the relevant statute: Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or ..
More
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
SARA LIOI, District Judge.
Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in the above-entitled action. (Doc. No. 14.) Under the relevant statute:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. [. . .]
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The R&R, which was served electronically on plaintiff, was filed on February 15, 2018. Objections were due by March 1, 2018. No objections were filed on or before that deadline.
The failure to file written objections to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh'g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); see United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
The Magistrate Judge recommended affirming the defendant's final decision denying plaintiff's applications for period of disabililty, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental security income, finding the decision supported by substantial evidence. No objections having been heard, the Court accepts the recommendation and dismisses this matter with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
