United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, AND RESOLVING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE .
Brenda Sims brings this social security appeal to challenge
the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)'s denial
of her claim for a period of disability and Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.,
and Supplemental Security Income Benefits (“SSI”)
under Title XVI, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. (Dkt.
# 4.) The matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge
Patricia T. Morris pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(B)(3). The parties have filed cross
motions for summary judgment. (Dkt. ## 11, 13.) The
magistrate judge has filed a report and recommendation (Dkt.
# 14) finding substantial evidence for the ALJ's
determination and recommending that the court grant
Defendant's motion and, accordingly, deny
Plaintiff's. Now before the court is Plaintiff's
objections to the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, (Dkt. # 15), to which Defendant has filed a
response (Dkt. # 16.)
filing of timely objections to an R&R requires the court
to “make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see
also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-74
(1980); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949
(6th Cir. 1981). This de novo review requires the court to
re-examine all of the relevant evidence previously reviewed
by the magistrate judge in order to determine whether the
recommendation should be accepted, rejected, or modified in
whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
filing of objections provides the district court with the
opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the
parties and to correct any errors immediately, ”
Walters, 638 F.2d at 950, enabling the court
“to focus attention on those issues-factual and
legal-that are at the heart of the parties' dispute,
” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). As
a result, “‘[o]nly those specific objections to
the magistrate's report made to the district court will
be preserved for appellate review; making some objections but
failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections
a party may have.'” McClanahan v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting
Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231,
829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)).
does not identify what she believes to have been errors in
the magistrate judge's reasoning. In her first objection,
Plaintiff raises the same complaints about the ALJ's
reasoning brought to the magistrate judge, and does not
address the magistrate judge's reasoning at all. (Dkt. #
15, Pg. ID 821-24.) Plaintiff's second objection simply
states that “botht he ALJ and the Magistrate Judge
misconstrued medical evidence and testimony that ultimately
resulted in an inadequate determination . . . .”
(Id. at Pg. ID 824.) But, again, Plaintiff does not
specifically identify any of the magistrate judge's
analysis; she simply recasts the arguments presented to the
magistrate judge as objections. Plaintiff's failure to
“identify any specific errors in the magistrate
judge's objections that, if corrected, might warrant a
different outcome is tantamount to an outright failure to
lodge objections to the [report and recommendation.]”
Wallace v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2016 4409062, at
*2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 19, 2016) (Cleland, J.) (citation
omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiff has waived any objections.
the court must review the report and recommendation. In a
social security case, the court “must affirm the
Commissioner's decision if it ‘is supported by
substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal
standards.'” Rabbers v. Comm'r Soc. Sec.
Admin., 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241
(6th Cir. 2007)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). When, as
here, the Appeals Council declines review of a
plaintiff's claim, “the decision of the ALJ becomes
the final decision of the [Commissioner].” Casey v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230,
1233 (6th Cir. 1993).
court's review of the record for substantial evidence is
quite deferential to the ALJ. “Substantial evidence is
more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a
preponderance and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,
” Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Co. v. Dir.,
Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, 473 F.3d 253, 259
(6th Cir. 2007), “even if that evidence could support a
decision the other way, ” Casey, 987 F.2d at
1233. Moreover, the court bases its review on the entire
administrative record, not just what the ALJ cited.
Heston v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528, 535
(6th Cir. 2001). “Even if supported by substantial
evidence, however, a decision of the Commissioner will not be
upheld where the [Social Security Administration] fails to
follow its own regulations and where that error prejudices a
claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant of a
substantial right.” Bowen v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing
Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541,
546-47 (6th Cir. 2004)).
court has reviewed the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation and finds it to be thorough, well-reasoned,
and correct. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's
objections to the report and recommendation (Dkt. # 15) are
DENIED. The report and recommendation (Dkt. # 14) is ADOPTED
in its entirety and incorporated by reference.
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary
judgment (DKt. # 13) is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for summary