The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MEGAN MARIE BROWN, ) Case No. 1:25-cv-2094
)
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. 9) in this appeal from the administrative action of the Social Security
Administration, which denied the application of Plaintiff Megan Marie Brown for
disability benefits. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court affirm the
Commissioner’s decision.
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. 9, PageID #1192–93.) 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 the parties
of the potential waiver.” United States v. Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868, 878 (6th Cir.
2019) (emphasis added); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir.
1981); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (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, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (“We clarify that
forfeiture, rather than waiver, is the relevant term here.”). This is so because
“[w]aiver is different from forfeiture.” United States v. Olando, 507 U.S. 725, 733
(1993); Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 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, 928 F.3d at 530 (citing Harris v. Klare, 902 F.3d
630, 635–36 (6th Cir. 2018)).
In any event, the time for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation
has passed. Plaintiff neither objected, nor provided some legitimate reason why she
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. 9), and AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 26, 2026
J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio