Holt v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ERIC W. HOLT,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
) 	CASE NO. 5:25-cv-00813
)
) 	JUDGE DAVID A. RUIZ
)
)
)
)
) 	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
)
)
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Darrell A. Clay. (R. 16).1 Plaintiff Eric W. Holt filed a Complaint (R. 1) on April 22, 2025,
challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for
a Period of Disability (POD) and Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). Magistrate Judge Clay’s
Report and Recommendation, issued on February 10, 2026, recommends the Court affirm the
Commissioner’s decision. (R. 16). “Within 14 days of being served with a copy of the
recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1); Local
Rule 72.3(b). On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a response indicating “Plaintiff will
not be filing an objection to the Magistrate [Judge]’s Report and Recommendation.” (R. 17).
1 This case was referred to the magistrate judge pursuant to Local Rule 72.2.
Case: 5:25-cv-00813-DAR Doc #: 18 Filed: 03/13/26 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
I. Standard of Review for a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
The applicable standard of review of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
depends upon whether objections were made to that report. When objections are made to a report
and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court conducts a de novo review. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) states:
Resolving Objections. The district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
The text of Rule 72(b)(3) addresses only the review of reports to which objections have
been made but does not specify any standard of review for those reports to which no objections
have lodged. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules commented on a district court’s review of
unopposed reports by magistrate judges. In regard to subsection (b) of Rule 72, the Advisory
Committee stated: “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there
is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72 Advisory Committee’s notes (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206
(9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879)).
“In the Sixth Circuit, failure to object constitutes a forfeiture.” Schuster v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., 2022 WL 219327, at *1 (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 25, 2022) (Lioi, J.) (citing Berkshire v.
Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (“We clarify that forfeiture, rather than waiver, is the
relevant term here.”)); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (holding that the Sixth
Circuit’s waiver/forfeiture 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”). Here, the Report and Recommendation placed the
Case: 5:25-cv-00813-DAR Doc #: 18 Filed: 03/13/26 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
parties on notice as to the potential for forfeiture in the event of failure to object. (R. 16, Page
ID#: 2741).
II. Conclusion
The Court having received no objections, has carefully reviewed the Report and
Recommendation and finding no clear error, agrees with the findings set forth therein. The
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (R. 16) is hereby ADOPTED. The
Commissioner’s decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
David A. Ruiz
David A. Ruiz
United States District Judge
Date: March 13, 2026
Case: 5:25-cv-00813-DAR Doc #: 18 Filed: 03/13/26 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>