United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
REMANDING MATTER PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR
Page Hood, United States District Court Chief Judge
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Mona K.
Majzoub's Report and Recommendation. [Doc. No.
18] Timely objections, a response to the objections,
and a reply to the response were filed in this matter.
[Doc. Nos. 19, 20, 21]
review of the Commissioner's decision is limited in scope
to determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper
legal criteria in reaching his conclusion. Garner v.
Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The credibility
findings of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
must not be discarded lightly and should be accorded great
deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district
court's review of an ALJ's decision is not a de
novo review. The district court may not resolve
conflicts in the evidence nor decide questions of
credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at 397. The decision
of the Commissioner must be upheld if supported by
substantial eidence, even if the record might support a
contrary decision or if the district court arrives at a
different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893
F.2d 106, 108 (6th Cir. 1984); Mullen v. Bowen, 800
F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).
Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds
that the Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for
the proper reasons. In reviewing Plaintiff's objections,
the Court finds that Plaintiff has not identified his
objections as expressly set forth in the Report and
Recommendation. See Doc. No. 18, PgID 1133-34
(“Failure to file specific objections constitutes a
waiver of any further right of appeal.”). The
objections Plaintiff has filed generally consist of a
restatement of the arguments he presented in his summary
judgment brief, an approach that is not appropriate or
sufficient. See, e.g., O'Connell v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 2016 WL 537771, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 11,
2016) (citing Betancourt v. Ace Ins. Co. of Puerto
Rico, 313 F.Supp.2d 32, 34 (D.P.R. 2004)); Davis v.
Caruso, No. 07-10115, 2008 WL 540818, at *2 (E.D. Mich.
Feb. 25, 2008) (denying an objection to an R&R where, among
other things, Plaintiff “merely rehashe[d] his
Western District of Michigan has explained:
This Court is not obligated to address objections made in
this form because the objections fail to identify the
specific errors in the magistrate judge's
proposed recommendations, and such objections undermine the
purpose of the Federal Magistrate's Act…which
serves to reduce duplicative work and conserve judicial
Owens v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 12-47, 2013 WL
1304470, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2013) (citations omitted)
(emphasis in original). See also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2) (objecting party is required to “file specific
written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations”). The Court particularly notes the
regurgitated arguments pertaining to the weight given to the
opinions of three physicians, Dr. Hayes, Dr. Martinez and Dr.
Owi, and Plaintiff's contention that the ALJ substituted
his own medical judgment for that of Dr. Hayes's opinion.
And, like the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds that the
substantive nature of Plaintiff's objections on these
matters is not meritorious because substantial evidence
supports the ALJ's findings.
Court also is not persuaded by Plaintiff's argument
regarding the ALJ's assessment of Plaintiff's RFC
limitations. Plaintiff's argument that he “should
not be assessed a capacity to work based on a lack
of evidence” is contradicted by substantial evidence
that supports the capacity to work assessed by the ALJ.
(emphasis in original). And, as the Government notes, it is
not the Commissioner's duty to rule out RFC limitations
(even if it is the Commissioner's duty to show a
plaintiff cannot do work available in the national economy at
step-five). See, e.g., Ferriel v. Comm'r of Soc.
Security, 614 F.3d 611, 621 (6th Cir. 2010) (“lack
of evidence” reasonably detracted from disability
reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the parties'
subsequent filings (the objections, response to objections,
and reply the response), the Court accepts the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation as this Court's
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED that
the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mona K.
Majzoub [Doc. No. 18, filed July 24, 2017]
is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as
this Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections
[Doc. No. 19, filed August 7, 2017] are
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 13, filed October 12,
2016] is DENIED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 16, filed December 19,
2016] is GRANTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is