Peyton v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2011cv02639 - Document 15 (N.D. Ohio 2012)

Court Description: Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/17/12 Adopting Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Court denies plaintiff's complaint. (Related Docs. 1 , 14 ) (M,G)

Download PDF
Peyton v. Commissioner of Social Security of Social Security Doc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: LARRY E. PEYTON, JR., : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : : COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL : SECURITY, : : Defendant. : : ------------------------------------------------------- CASE NO. 1:11-CV-02639 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Docs. No. 1, 11, 14] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On December 6, 2011, Plaintiff Larry E. Peyton, Jr. filed a complaint seeking judicial review of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny him disability benefits. [Doc. 1]. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Greg White pursuant to Local Rule 72.2. On July 11, 2012, Magistrate Judge White issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff Peyton’s complaint be dismissed for want of prosecution. [Doc. 14 at 1-2]. Specifically, Magistrate Judge White noted that Peyton had until June 11, 2012 to file his brief on the merits, but failed to do so and also failed to ask for an extension of time to do so. [Doc. 14 at 1-2]. On June 26, 2012 Magistrate Judge White issued a show cause order giving Plaintiff until July 6, 2012 to explain why this lawsuit should not be dismissed. [Doc. 13; 14 at 1-2]. Peyton never responded to that order, nor did he respond to Magistrate Judge White’s Report and Recommendation. The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of -1- Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 1:11-CV-2639 Gwin, J. those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which the parties have made an objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Act grants parties fourteen days to file objections. Id. Failure to object within this time waives a party’s right to appeal the district court’s judgment. FED . R. CIV . P. 72(a); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Absent objection, a district court may adopt the magistrate judge’s report without review. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149. In this case, neither party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Moreover, having conducted its own review of the Report and Recommendation, record, and parties’ (minimal) briefs, the Court agrees with the recommendation of Magistrate Judge White that the Court dismiss Peyton’s lawsuit for want of prosecution. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS in whole Magistrate Judge White’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it fully herein by reference, and DENIES Plaintiff Sopko’s complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED Dated: September 17, 2012 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT -2- JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.