United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Robert J. Allor, Jr., Plaintiff,
Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Elizabeth A. Stafford Magistrate Judge
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
F. Cox United States District Judge
Robert J. Allor, Jr., (“Plaintiff”) brought this
action seeking judicial review of Defendant Commissioner of
Social Security's (“Defendant”) determination
that he is not entitled to disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income benefits under 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). (Doc. # 1).
proceedings in this case were referred to Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth A. Stafford pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). (Doc. # 2). Sometime thereafter,
Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. (Doc. # 11, Pl.'s Mo.; Doc. # 12, Def.'s
November 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge Stafford issued a Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”), wherein she
recommended that: (1) Defendant's motion be DENIED; (2)
Plaintiff's motion be GRANTED; and (3) that the
Commissioner's decision be REMANDED for further
consideration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). (Doc. # 17, R&R). Defendant timely filed
objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Doc. # 19,
Def.'s Objs.) and Plaintiff timely responded to
Defendant's objections. (Doc. # 20, Pl.'s Resp.).
Court finds Defendant's objections to be without merit.
The Court shall therefore ACCEPT AND ADOPT the R&R and
GRANT Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. #
11). Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 12)
is therefore DENIED and the decision of the Commissioner
shall be REMANDED for further consideration pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
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 Stafford determined that the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) improperly
relied upon only fragments of the record and his own lay
evaluation of medical evidence in order to find that
Plaintiff was capable of a limited range of light work.
Magistrate Judge Stafford also determined that the ALJ erred
by concluding that Plaintiff's condition did not equal a
disability listing without the support of a an expert medical
opinion. For these reasons, the Magistrate Judge found that
the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial
evidence. (R&R at 7). Defendant lodges three objections
to the Magistrate Judge's R&R.
# 1. Defendant's first objection relates to the
Magistrate's determination that the RFC finding was not
supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Defendant
“objects to Judge Stafford's recommendation that
this case should be remanded because there was no medical
opinion in the record regarding the limitations caused by
Plaintiff's physical impairments.” (Def.'s
Objs. at 2). Defendant argues that “[b]oth the Sixth
Circuit and this Court have rejected the argument that an ALJ
errs simply because there is no medical opinion that
corresponds to his RFC finding.” (Id. at 4)
(citing to cases).
objection disregards the Magistrate Judge's reasons for
concluding that a remand was necessary and it misconstrues
the Magistrate Judge's R&R. Contrary to
Defendant's assertions, the Magistrate Judge did not
conclude that the ALJ erred “simply because”
there was no medical opinion. Instead, Magistrate Judge
Stafford noted that the ALJ's citation to fragments of
the record was further ...