United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. MAJZOUB, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOCUMENT NO. 20), ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (DOCUMENT NO. 19), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCUMENT NO. 14), AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOCUMENT NO.
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III United States District Judge
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) denied the application of Khalida Oraha
for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance
Benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”). See Administrative Record
("A.R.") 9-30, ECF No. 10-2. After the SSA Appeals
Council declined to review the ruling, Oraha appealed. The
Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Mona K.
Majzoub, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. See Mot. Summ. J., ECF Nos. 14, 15. The
magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation
("Report") suggesting the Court deny Oraha's
motion and grant the Commissioner's motion. Report, ECF
No. 19. Oraha filed timely objections to the Report. Obj.,
ECF No. 20. After examining the record and considering
Oraha's objections de novo, the Court concludes that his
arguments do not have merit. Accordingly, the Court will
adopt the Report's findings, deny Oraha's motion for
summary judgment, grant the Commissioner's motion for
summary judgment, and dismiss the complaint.
Report properly details the events giving rise to Oraha's
action against the Commissioner. Report 2-4, ECF No. 19. The
Court will adopt that portion of the Report.
Rule 72(b) governs the review of a magistrate judge's
report. A district court's standard of review depends
upon whether a party files objections. The Court need not
undertake any review of portions of a Report to which no
party has objected. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153
(1985). De novo review is required, however, if the parties
"serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations." Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2). In conducting a de novo review, "[t]he
district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter
to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed.R.Civ.P.
reviewing a case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court
"must affirm the Commissioner's conclusions absent a
determination that the Commissioner has failed to apply the
correct legal standards or has made findings of fact
unsupported by substantial evidence in the record."
Longworth v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 402 F.3d
591, 595 (6th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted). Substantial
evidence consists of "more than a scintilla of evidence
but less than a preponderance" such that a
"reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion." Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,
486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted). An
ALJ may consider the entire body of evidence without directly
addressing each piece in his decision. Kornecky v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 167 F.App'x 496, 508 (6th
Cir. 2006). "Nor must an ALJ make explicit credibility
findings as to each bit of conflicting testimony, so long as
his factual findings as a whole show that he implicitly
resolved such conflicts." Id.
first objects to the magistrate judge's conclusion that
the ALJ's determination of Oraha's residual
functional capacity (RFC) was proper. She claims to have
"a multitude of physical impairments which prevent her
from working on a sustained basis" with a light exertion
level, as indicated by her need for assistance with
completing basic daily tasks. Obj. 2, ECF No. 20. There is
insufficient evidence for that conclusion.
making the RFC determination, the ALJ cited numerous grounds
as support, including (1) Oraha's admission that
"she only required assistance to put her socks and pants
on . . . but otherwise  was able to dress and shower
independently", see A.R. 26, ECF No. 10-2; (2)
Oraha's various activities, which included light
housework, sewing, reading, short walks, and going to the gym
regularly to exercise, id.; (3) several reports that
Oraha's gait and posture were normal, id. at
21-24; (4) and the absence of anything in the record showing
that Oraha was limited with her upper extremities,
id. at 25. Overall, the record indicates that the
ALJ gave adequate consideration to the relevant evidence in
determining Oraha's RFC, and there is significant
evidence to support that determination.
Oraha argues that the magistrate erroneously concluded that
the ALJ made a proper credibility determination.
Specifically, Oraha claims that the ALJ gave an
"unexplained conclusion" that amounted to a
"boilerplate determination" of Oraha's
credibility. Obj. 2, ECF No. 20. That description is patently
wrong. The record belies Oraha's contention: the
ALJ's determination explicitly highlights several aspects
that weighed against the credibility of Oraha's
allegations: (1) Oraha's ability to perform numerous
daily activities, including those mentioned above, along with
cooking meals, taking short walks, going to the store, and
driving short distances, A.R. 27, ECF No. 10-2; (2)
conservative medical treatment that was never upgraded to
address supposedly debilitating impairments, id. at
27; and (3) the significant improvement of Oraha's mental
impairments after being placed on Adderall, improvements that
enabled her to take an extended ...