Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bailey v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

March 6, 2017

Janice Bailey, Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          Patricia T. Morris Magistrate Judge.

          ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Sean F. Cox United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Janice Bailey (“Plaintiff”) brought this action seeking judicial review of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's (“Defendant”) determination that she is not entitled to Disability Insurance Benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. # 1).

         All proceedings in this action were referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. # 2). Sometime thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Doc. # 21; Doc. # 26).

         On December 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge Morris issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R), wherein she recommended that the Court DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and AFFIRM the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Doc. # 27, R&R). Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the December 28, 2016 R&R on January 11, 2017. (Doc. # 29, Pl.'s Obj.). Defendant timely responded to Plaintiff's objection on January 25, 2017. (Doc. # 31, Def.'s Resp.).

         For the reasons outlined below, the Court finds Plaintiff's objections to be 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 Judgment.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Pursuant 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).

         Objections 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).

         “The 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).

         ANALYSIS

         At the outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff's objections are not properly labeled, making it difficult for the Court to discern which provisions of the R&R Plaintiff objects to. With this in mind, it appears that Plaintiff takes issue with the Magistrate Judge's determination that the ALJ properly assessed the severity of Plaintiff's mental impairments and the Magistrate Judge's determination that the ALJ properly accorded great weight to the opinion of the agency's non-examining source, Dr. Tsai, even though certain records were not before Dr. Tsai at the time that he completed his review.

         Plaintiff appears to advance the following objections to the R&R: (1) the Magistrate Judge was under the mistaken impression that Plaintiff did not argue that the Hillside reports were from treating sources; (2) the Magistrate Judge erred in claiming that the ALJ “plainly considered [Plaintiff's] nonsevere mental impairments at each step of the disability determination, including the RFC assessment;” (3) the Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that because the ALJ considered the Hillside opinions in rendering his findings, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate any error in according Dr. Tsai's opinion great weight; and (4) the Magistrate Judge erred in claiming that, by simply reciting the GAF scores in the record, the ALJ provided sufficient indication that he gave due consideration to the Hillside non-treating opinions. None of Plaintiff's objections have merit.

         First, Plaintiff unpersuasively argues that the Magistrate Judge was mistaken when she asserted that Plaintiff did not argue that the Hillside reports were from a treating source. Notably absent from Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment was any substantive discussion as to whether and why the Hillside opinions were from treating sources. Instead, Plaintiff merely asserted, in a conclusory fashion, that the opinions were from ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.