Hawk v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

ANGELA MARIE HAWK,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:20-cv-81 v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

Magistrate Judge Stephanie Bowman COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

ORDER

On February 1, 2021, Magistrate Judge Bowman issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) (Doc. 12) recommending that Defendant’s decision be found to be SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, and AFFIRMED, and that this case be CLOSED. The R&R advised the parties that failing to object within days would constitute a forfeiture of the right to review. (R&R at #1617 (first citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); then United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981))).

Now, the time period for objection has run, and no party has objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 152; see also Berskhire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530–31 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting “fail[ure] to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R … is forfeiture”). Thus, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Bowman’s R&R (Doc. 12), which finds the Defendant’s decision to be SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, and AFFIRMED, and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

February 26, 2021

DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE