Ella Grace Gill v. Commissioner of Social Security

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Ella Grace Gill v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, N.D. Ohio

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 5:25-cv-00242

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ELLA GRACE GILL, ) Case No. 5:25-cv-00242
)
Plaintiff, ) Judge J. Philip Calabrese
)
v. ) Magistrate Judge Reuben J. Sheperd
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL )
SECURITY, )
)
Defendant. )
)

ORDER

In this appeal from the administrative determination of the Social Security
Administration, which denied supplemental security income, the Magistrate Judge
filed a Report and Recommendation that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s final
decision and remand for further proceedings because the Administrative Law Judge
“failed to apply proper legal standards in the Listings determination.” (ECF No. 10,
PageID #1615.) 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. (Id., PageID #1615–16.)
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. Defendant did not object. Rather, Defendant filed a response that he

“will not be filing objections to this Honorable Court’s Report and Recommended
Decision.” (ECF No. 11, PageID #1617.) 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. 10), REVERSES the Commissioner’s final decision, and
REMANDS this matter for further proceedings consistent with this Order and the
Report and Recommendation.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 27, 2026

J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio