United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. MAJZOUB MAGISTRATE JUDGE
OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS ,
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION , DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT , AND
GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III United States District Judge
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
("SSA") denied Jeffrey Schrock, Jr.'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 Schrock 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 deny Schrock's motion and grant the
Commissioner's motion. Schrock filed timely objections.
Having examined the record and considered the objections de
novo, the Court will overrule the objections, adopt the
Report, deny Schrock'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
Schrock's action. Report 2-3, 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 review the 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 it 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, 507-08 (6th Cir. 2006). And an ALJ need not "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."
objects to the magistrate judge's decision to uphold the
ALJ's adverse credibility determination based on
Schrock's noncompliance with his prescribed medical
treatment. The ALJ's decision, he argues, was not
supported by substantial evidence; he says the record instead
shows that Schrock "lacked the funds and mental
stability to adhere to the treatment program." Obj. 2,
ECF No. 16.
may properly assess a claimant's credibility when
considering her complaints. Walters v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 1997). And because an
ALJ's duty is to observe a witness's demeanor and
credibility, any findings based on credibility are to be
accorded great weight and deference. Id.
the magistrate judge clearly and comprehensively outlined the
ALJ's assessment of Schrock's noncompliance with his
medical treatment for Type I diabetes. See Report
8-10, ECF No. 15. Although Schrock claimed there were mental,
social, and fiscal barriers to complying with his treatment,
the ALJ found that the evidence in the entire case record
diminished the credibility of his allegations: his mental
heath issues were mild considering the symptomology,
intervention, and service that accompanies severe issues; he
did not pursue mental health treatment like someone whose
mental health bars him from work activity; he had access to
low cost psychological providers; he possessed the requisite
intelligence, concentration, and memory for his diabetes
treatment; and, among other things, he reportedly completed a
wide range of daily activities. AR 28-31, ECF No. 9-2.
Court accords great deference to the ALJ's findings, and
concludes that they are proper. Substantial evidence
supported the ALJ's ...