United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
NORMAN B. ISKOW, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS ,
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION , GRANTING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT , AND DENYING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
("SSA") denied Norman Iskow's application for
Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance
Benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ"). The SSA Appeals Council declined to review
the ruling, and Iskow appealed. The Court referred the matter
to the magistrate judge and the parties filed cross-motions
for summary judgment. The magistrate judge issued a Report
and Recommendation ("Report") suggesting the Court
grant Iskow's motion and deny the Commissioner's
motion. Notwithstanding the magistrate judge's
recommendation in his favor, Iskow filed objections that were
timely, but obviously unnecessary and insensitive to the
Court's scarce judicial resources. Having now examined
the record and considered the objections de novo, the Court
will largely disregard and overrule the objections, adopt the
Report, grant Iskow's motion for summary judgment, deny
the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, and
remand the case for further proceedings consistent with the
Report properly details the events giving rise to Iskow's
action. Report 1-2, 5-6, ECF No. 15. The Court will adopt
that portion of the Report.
Rule of Civil Procedure 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. 72(b)(3).
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.
objects to the Report insofar as it does not specify that the
ALJ should give further consideration to Iskow's
"mental capacity secondary to mental illness, pain,
medications and fatigue, " beyond revisiting Iskow's
capacity for lifting. Id. The Commissioner argues
that the Court need not address the objections because on
remand "the ALJ will conduct a new hearing and consider
the record anew to determine whether [Iskow] is entitled to
Supplemental Security Income benefits." Reply 2, ECF No.
Commissioner is correct. The magistrate judge recommended
that the case be remanded for further proceedings pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Report 41, ECF No.
15. The Court will order the same on remand here. A new
hearing will afford the ALJ an opportunity to address issues
raised in Iskow's objections. The magistrate judge did
not need to specify each aspect that should be considered on
remand. See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98
(1991) (stating that sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
allows the Court to affirm, modify, or reverse the
Commissioner's decision "with or without remanding
the cause for a rehearing"). Accordingly, the Court will
overrule Iskow's objections, and remand the case for
further proceedings consistent with the Report and pursuant
to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
is cautioned not to waste the Court's time by filing
fruitless objections in the future.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED
that Iskow's Objections  are
OVERRULED, and the magistrate judge's
Report and Recommendation  is ADOPTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Iskow's Motion for
Summary Judgment  is GRANTED, and the
Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment  is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is
REMANDED for further proceedings consistent
with the Report and the instant Order, pursuant to ...