United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
March 19, 2015
TERRELL JACKSON, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Denise Page Hood, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff Terrell Jackson’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 20, filed April 7, 2014] and Defendant Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 26, filed July 30, 2014]. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety [Docket No. 27, filed January 29, 2015]. Defendant Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 26, filed July 30, 2014] is GRANTED.
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in reaching his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984)). The credibility findings of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) must not be discarded lightly and should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court’s review of an ALJ’s decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve conflicts in the evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at 397. The decision of the Commissioner must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, even if the record might support a contrary decision or if the district court arrives at a different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d 106, 108 (6th Cir. 1984); Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).
“[O]nly those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review; making some objections but failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections a party may have.” Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). “An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is” insufficient. Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F.Supp.2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). A party’s failure to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal, see Smith, 829 F.2d at 1373, and relieves the Court from its duty to review the matter independently. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusion for the proper reasons. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work is supported by substantial evidence. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the ALJ’s findings and the record thoroughly in reaching his conclusion. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Commissioner could reasonably conclude that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of severe, disabling symptoms stemming from depression, anxiety, and diabetic diarrhea were not fully credible or not as disabling as Plaintiff alleges. The Magistrate Judge set forth specific examples of how the ALJ’s findings were supported by the record.
The Court notes that the Magistrate Judge also notified the parties of their right to “seek review of this Report and Recommendation” and reminded them of the timeline in which to do so. As previously stated, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant have filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s January 29, 2015, Report and Recommendation. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk [Docket No. 27, filed January 29, 2015] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s findings and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 20, filed April 7, 2014] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 26, filed July 30, 2014] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED with prejudice.