United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
MELISSA M. MCALLISTER, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Patricia T. Morris, Judge
OPINION AND ORDER SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING
IN PART PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 18) AND MODIFYING IN PART AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 17)
TERRENCE G. BERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Melissa
McAllister's objections (Dkt. 18) to Magistrate Judge
Patricia T. Morris's September 29, 2016 report and
recommendation (Dkt. 17), recommending that the Court deny
Petitioner's motion to remand (Dkt. 14), grant
Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 15), and
affirm this case. Dkt. 17, Pg. ID 852.
the exception of two scrivener's errors discussed below,
the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Morris's findings
of fact are accurate and adopts them for purposes of this
raises four different objections to the report and
recommendation. The first and second objections contain
multiple grounds. Before making a “de novo
determination of those portions of the report . . . to which
objection is made, ” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the
Court will address objections that Plaintiff improperly
Objections Plaintiff improperly raised
objects to the report and recommendation's finding that
the ALJ provided good reasons for not according great weight
to Dr. Nowland's Residual Functional Capacity Assessment
(“RFC Assessment”), Dkt. 9-10, Pg. ID 690-93, and
provides four reasons for support. Two of those reasons are
improperly raised. First, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ
failed to adequately identify the purported inconsistencies
between the RFC Assessment and the other evidence of record.
Dkt. 18, Pg. ID 897. Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ
found that Plaintiff was suffering from many severe
impairments and that the statements in Dr. Nowland's RFC
Assessment were consistent with that finding, so the ALJ
should have given weight to the information in the RFC
Assessment. Dkt. 18, Pg. ID 898. Plaintiff advanced both
arguments in her motion to remand. Dkt. 14, Pg. IDs 786,
also objects to the adequacy of the ALJ's analysis of
Plaintiff's credibility on the ground that Plaintiff did
not exaggerate her physical limitations and even admitted
that some of her conditions improved. Dkt. 18, Pg. ID 900.
Plaintiff asserted the same argument in her motion to remand.
Dkt. 14, Pg. IDs 792-793.
Plaintiff objects to the hypothetical RFC created by the ALJ
who oversaw the administrative proceedings on the ground that
it does not account for all of Plaintiff's impairments.
Dkt. 18, Pg. IDs 900-901. Plaintiff asserted the same
argument in her motion to remand. Dkt. 14, Pg. ID 790.
these objections raise arguments that were advanced in
Plaintiff's initial motion. To engage in an extended
discussion of the merits of these objections would be to
“undermine the purpose of the Federal Magistrate's
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, which serves to reduce duplicative
work and conserve judicial resources.” Nork v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2015 WL 3620482 at *1 (E.D.
Mich. 2015). Nonetheless, the Court has considered these
objections, and finds that they are not well taken;
Magistrate Judge Morris articulated valid reasons for
rejecting these arguments, and Plaintiff provides no good
basis for disturbing the recommendation.
Court now turns to those objections that are properly raised.