United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
F. COX UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jamie Lee Barnhill (“Plaintiff”) brought this
action seeking judicial review of Defendant Commissioner of
Social Security's (“Defendant”) determination
that he is not entitled to Disability Insurance Benefits
under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. #1).
thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross-motions for
summary judgment. (Doc. #13, Pl.'s Br. and Doc. #16,
Def.'s Br.). All proceedings in this case were referred
to Magistrate David R. Grand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A), (B) and (C). (Doc. #3).
November 30, 2016, Magistrate Judge Grand issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), wherein he
recommended that the Court GRANT Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment, DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment, and AFFIRM the decision of the ALJ. (Doc. # 18,
R&R at 1). Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the
November 30, 2016, R&R on December 14, 2016. (Doc. # 19,
Pl.'s Objs.). Defendant timely responded to
Plaintiff's objection on December 23, 2016. (Doc. # 20,
Court finds Plaintiff's objections to be improper and
without merit. The Court shall therefore ACCEPT AND
ADOPT the R&R, GRANT
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and
DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a party objecting
to the recommended disposition of a matter by a Magistrate
Judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Objections must “(A) specify the
part of the order, proposed findings, recommendations, or
report to which a person objects; and (B) state the basis for
the objection.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d).
are not “a second opportunity to present the argument
already considered by the Magistrate Judge.”
Betancourt v. Ace Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, 313
F.Supp.2d 32, 34 (D.P.R. 2004). Moreover, the district court
should not consider arguments that have not first been
presented to the magistrate judge. See Stonecrest
Partners, LLC v. Bank of Hampton Roads, 770 F.Supp.2d
778, 785 (E.D. N.C. 2011).
district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly
objected to. The 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. 72(b)(3).
first objection, Plaintiff argues that “the ALJ'S
RFC finding is not supported by substantial evidence.”
(Pl.'s Objs. at 1). Plaintiff takes issue with: (1) the
RFC finding because the ALJ did not base it on a medical
opinion; and (2) with the ALJ's failure to rely upon the
opinion of a treating physical therapist. (Id.). The
arguments advanced in support of Plaintiff's first
objection pertain entirely to the ALJ's decision and have
already been rejected by Magistrate Judge Grand. Notably
absent from Plaintiff's objection is any argument that
the Magistrate Judge's reasoning is deficient or flawed.
Simply put, Plaintiff has not presented any argument
that would persuade the Court to reject Magistrate Judge
Grand's well-reasoned resolution of the challenged
issues. Moreover, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge
as to these issues. Accordingly, Plaintiff's first
objection is overruled.
second objection, Plaintiff argues that the “ALJ's
credibility determination is not supported by substantial
evidence.” (Pl.'s Objs. at 3). Specifically,
Plaintiff argues that “[t]he ALJ failed to follow the
requirements of SSR 96-7p when he found that the
plaintiff's complaints of intense pain and limitations
were not fully credible.” (Id. at 4).
Plaintiff's second objection suffers from the same flaw
as his first: it pertains entirely to the decision of the
ALJ, rather than the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff fails to
point to a specific deficiency in the Magistrate Judge's
reasoning. Moreover, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge
Grand's analysis as to the issue of credibility. As such,
Plaintiff's second objection is overruled.
final objection, Plaintiff argues that the “substantial
evidence does not support the ALJ's step five
finding.” (Id. at 5). Here, Plaintiff takes
issue with the ALJ's failure “to include [in the
hypothetical question to the vocational expert a] sufficient
limitation from plaintiff's severe degenerative disc
disease.” (Id.). This objection, like the
objections before it, is improper. Again, Plaintiff fails to
make any mention of the Magistrate Judge's R&R.
Moreover, this ...