United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. Majzoub Magistrate Judge.
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
F. Cox United States District Judge.
Dana Roisin Murphy (“Plaintiff”) brought this
action seeking judicial review of Defendant Commissioner of
Social Security's (“Defendant”) determination
that she is not entitled to social security benefits for her
mental impairments under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. # 1).
proceedings in this case were referred to Magistrate Judge
Mona K. Majzoub pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A),
(B), and (C) on December 7, 2015. (Doc. # 4). Sometime
thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross-motions for
summary judgment. (Doc. # 15, Pl.'s Mo.; Doc. # 16,
February 8, 2017, Magistrate Judge Majzoub filed a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), wherein she
recommended that the Court DENY Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment and GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. # 17, R&R at 1). Plaintiff timely filed
objections to the R&R on February 22, 2017. (Doc. # 18,
Pl.'s Objs.). Defendant timely responded to
Plaintiff's objections on March 7, 2017. (Doc. # 19,
Court finds Plaintiff's objections to be improper and
without merit. The Court shall therefore ACCEPT AND ADOPT the
R&R, DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. #15), and GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. # 16).
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).
R&R, Magistrate Judge Majzoub determined that there was
sufficient evidence in the record to support the
Administrative Law Judge's (“ALJ”)
determination that Plaintiff did not have deficits in
adaptive functioning and therefore failed to meet Listing
12.05C. (R&R at 9). The Magistrate Judge concluded that
“while there is indeed evidence that tends to support
Plaintiff's assertions, there is also substantial
evidence supporting the ALJ's conclusions. Therefore,
this issue falls within the ALJ's zone of choice, and her
assessment should not be disturbed.” (R&R at 10).
Plaintiff lodges two objections to the Magistrate Judge's
# 1. First, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge
Majzoub “erred in inferring that the ALJ applied a
correct legal standard when her only recitation of that
standard was in error.” (Pl. Objs. at 3). Specifically,
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ misstated Listing 12.05C's
adaptive-functioning standard by stating that there are not
“deficits in adaptive functioning resulting in
mental incapacity.” (Id.) (emphasis
added). Rather than point to a specific deficiency in the
Magistrate Judge's analysis, Plaintiff improperly asserts
an argument that has already been advanced before, and
rejected by, Magistrate Judge Majzoub:
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ misstated the
adaptive-functioning standard by stating that Plaintiff's
‘abilities and activities detailed in the record show
that there are not deficits in adaptive functioning
resulting in mental incapacity.” (Docket no.
15 at 15-16 (citing TR 22) (emphasis added).) Plaintiff
argues that the italicized phrase is not part of the adaptive
functioning standard, and that by adding this requirement to
her analysis, the ALJ employed an unduly strict standard,
which constitutes reversible error. (Id.)
Plaintiff's argument in this regard fails, as there are
at least three other instances in ...