GARY SHEAR v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY (2026)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton's Report and Recommendation, entered August 14, 2026.¹ Doc. 23. The Report recommends that the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's (“Commissioner”) final decision denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”) sought pursuant to Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act (the “Act”) should be AFFIRMED. Plaintiff had fourteen days after being served to file objections. Plaintiff did not file objections.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of certain district court duties to magistrate judges. See United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869–70 (1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App'x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). For non-dispositive orders, the district court “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). For dispositive matters, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After reviewing the evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's proposed findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court is not required to review—under a de novo or any other standard—those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court should adopt the magistrate judge's findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. See id. at 151.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The Court has reviewed the Report and the entire record in this matter and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis or conclusions. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge warned that:

ANY OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS TO THIS REPORT MUST BE FILED WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY OF THE REPORT. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). FAILURE TO FILE SAID OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS MAY CONSTITUTE A WAIVER AND/OR FORFEITURE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND ANY FURTHER APPEAL.

Doc. 23 at 8. Despite this clear warning, no objections were filed, so Plaintiff forfeited any challenge to the Report. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150.

Therefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23). Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED, as confirmed by a separate judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of September 2026.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This matter was originally assigned to Judge Mark S. Norris when it was filed in June 2025. Doc. 1. Judge Norris transferred the case to the undersigned on March 25, 2026. Doc. 20.

BRIAN C. LEA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE