Moore v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 89-6373

• Decision Date: 14 December 1989
• Docket Number: No. 89-6373,89-6373
• Citation: 891 F.2d 291
• Parties: NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Willie L. MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 291

891 F.2d 291

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

Willie L. MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 89-6373.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 14, 1989.

Before BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., NATHANIEL R. JONES, Jr. and RALPH B. GUY, Jr., Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Pursuant to an order entered on November 20, 1989, the plaintiff was directed to show cause why this court should not consider his right to an appeal waived because of his failure to object to the Magistrate's report and recommendation. Plaintiff's counsel has now responded.

Since 1981, this Court has required litigants to file timely objections to Magistrate's reports and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) in order to preserve the right to appeal a subsequent order of the district court adopting and approving that report. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981). The United States Supreme Court has upheld that practice. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

In this action, the Magistrate filed a report with a recommendation the defendant's decision denying the plaintiff's application for social security disability and supplemental security income be affirmed. As required by our decision in Walters, that report contained a footnote informing the parties of the objection requirement. No timely objections were filed, however, and the district court accepted the report in whole and entered judgment for the defendant.

In his response to the show cause order, plaintiff's counsel states he was unaware of this Court's objection requirement. He admits he noticed the footnote in the report, but states he did not read it carefully. He...