UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

NATHAN A. MASEK, ) Case No. 1:23-cv-00723 ) Plaintiff, ) Judge J. Philip Calabrese ) v. ) Magistrate Judge ) Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) in this appeal from the administrative action of the Social Security Administration, which denied disability benefits. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss the case without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s orders and for failure to prosecute. The Report and Recommendation advised both parties that a failure to object within 14 days may result in waiver of rights on appeal, which includes the right to review before the Court. (See ECF No. 6, PageID #633–34.) Under the law of this Circuit, “failure to object to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation results in a waiver of appeal on that issue as long as the magistrate judge informs parties of that potential waiver.” United States v. Wandahsega,

(6th Cir. 2019) (emphasis added); United States v. Walters,

, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981); see also Thomas v. Arn,

(1985) (holding that the Sixth Circuit’s waiver rule is within its supervisory powers and “[t]here 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”).

The Sixth Circuit has clarified that failure to object is not a waiver, but a forfeiture. Berkshire v. Beauvais,

(6th Cir. 2019) (“We clarify that forfeiture, rather than waiver, is the relevant term here.”). This is so because “[w]aiver is different than forfeiture.” United States v. Olando,

(1993); Freytag v. Commissioner,

, 894 n.2 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring) (noting the Supreme Court’s cases “often used [waiver and forfeiture]

interchangeably,” but that “[t]he two are really not the same.”). This difference matters because forfeited issues may, in certain circumstances, nevertheless be considered on appeal.” Berkshire,

(citing Harris v. Klare,

, 635–36 (6th Cir. 2018)). In any event, the time for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation has passed. Mr. Masek neither objected, nor provided some legitimate reason why he failed to do so. Further, upon the Court’s independent review of the record, there

does not appear to be clear error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) and DISMISSES the action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 15, 2024

J. Philip Calabrese United States District Judge Northern District of Ohio