govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_25-cv-01373-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
LARRY WILSON, ) 
 ) 
 Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-01373-SM 
 ) 
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL ) 
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ) 
 ) 
 Defendant. ) 
 
ORDER 
 
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell’s Report and 
Recommendation (“R. & R.”) [Doc. No. 17] issued on May 12, 2026.1 
Judge Mitchell recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 
without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. [Doc. No. 17 at 6]. Judge Mitchell advised 
the parties of their right to file an objection to the R. & R. with the Clerk of Court by May 
26, 2026, and explained that failure to timely object waives the right to appellate review 
of both factual and legal issues contained in the R. & R. [Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 72, and Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991))]. 
“[A] party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must 
be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or 
for appellate review.” United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 
 
1 This case was assigned to Judge Mitchell on November 18, 2025. The record 
contains the Amended Complaint and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, to which Plaintiff 
did not respond. [Doc. Nos. 8, 14]. 

2 
 
1996). By not objecting to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the parties 
waive their rights to challenge the legal and factual basis for the magistrate judge’s 
decision. See Ayala v. United States, 980 F.2d 1342, 1352 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that 
the plaintiffs “waived their right to appeal the magistrate’s ruling” because they did not 
file any objections); Moore, 950 F.2d at 659 (“Our waiver rule provides that the failure to 
make timely objection to the magistrate’s findings or recommendations waives appellate 
review of both factual and legal questions.”). The following two exceptions to the waiver 
rule exist: “when (1) a pro se litigant has not been informed of the time period for 
objecting and the consequences of failing to object, or when (2) the ‘interests of justice’ 
require review.” Morales-Fernandez v. I.N.S., 418 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir. 2005) 
(quoting Moore, 950 F.2d at 659). The Tenth Circuit has considered various factors to 
determine whether the interests of justice require review, which include “(1) a pro se 
litigant’s effort to comply, (2) the force and plausibility of the explanation for his failure 
to comply, and (3) the importance of the issues raised.” Id. at 1120. 
Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed an objection to the R. & R. by the deadline, 
and both parties waived their right to challenge the recommended disposition. Neither 
party filed anything in response to the R. & R. or sought an extension of time to do so. 
“The waiver rule as a procedural bar need not be applied when the interests of justice so 
dictate.” Moore, 950 F.2d at 659. However, considering the factors, the interests of 
justice do not warrant an exception to the waiver rule in this case. See Morales-
Fernandez, 418 F.3d at 1120. 

3 
 
Alternatively, having conducted a de novo review of the R. & R., the Court agrees 
with the reasoning of the R. & R. due to the lack of a final decision of the Commissioner 
in this case. [See Doc. No. 17 at 5–6]. 
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 
17] and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint without prejudice. A separate 
judgment in favor of Defendant will follow. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of June 2026. 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight