United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
MIKE K. ALTYG, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner. Social Security Administration Defendant.
ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS
[Doc. 22]; (2) ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [Doc. 21]; (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. 16]; AND
(4) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. 20]
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge
31, 2017, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”),
recommending that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary
Judgment be GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment be DENIED; and the Administrative Law Judge's
(“ALJ”) final decision be AFFIRMED. Plaintiff
timely objected to the R&R; the objections are fully
following reasons, the Court OVERRULES
Plaintiff's objections and ADOPTS
Magistrate Judge Stafford's R&R.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3), a district judge is required to
determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation that has been properly
objected to. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
De novo review requires the Court to re-examine all
relevant evidence previously reviewed by the magistrate judge
to determine whether the recommendations should be accepted,
rejected, or modified. Cole v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., 105 F.Supp.3d 738, 741 (E.D. Mich. 2015); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
party has objected to portions of a magistrate judge's
report and recommendation, the Court conducts a de
novo review of those portions. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b);
Lyons v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 351 F.Supp.2d 659,
661 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Only those objections that are
specific are entitled to a de novo review. Mira
v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986).
“The parties have the duty to pinpoint those portions
of the magistrate's report that the district court must
specially consider.” Id. A non-specific
objection, or one that merely reiterates arguments previously
presented, does not adequately identify alleged errors on the
part of the magistrate judge and results in a duplication of
effort on the part of the district court: “A general
objection to the entirety of the magistrate's report has
the same effects as would a failure to object. The district
court's attention is not focused on any specific issues
for review, thereby making the initial reference to the
magistrate useless.” Howard v. Sec'y of Health
and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
Specific objections enable the Court to focus on the
particular issues in contention. An “objection”
that does nothing more than disagree with a magistrate
judge's determination, “without explaining the
source of the error, ” is not considered a valid
objection. Id. Without specific objections,
“[t]he functions of the district court are effectively
duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court
perform identical tasks. This duplication of time and effort
wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs
contrary to the purposes of the Magistrates Act.”
Id. Non-specific objections are considered invalid,
and therefore the Court must treat them as if they were
waived. See Bellmore-Byrne v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., 2016 WL 5219541, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 22,
sets forth six objections to the R&R.
#1: Plaintiff objects that the ALJ's decision was
not supported by substantial evidence. He says the ALJ
disregarded Plaintiff's testimony.
#6: Plaintiff objects that the recommendation failed to
consider Plaintiff's request for a Sentence Four remand
and a new consultative examination.
objections fail to point out specific errors in the
Magistrate Judge's R&R, and are deemed
#3: Plaintiff objects that the ALJ's decision was
not supported by substantial evidence
because the ALJ relied on his subjective determinations about
objection is very similar to the first objection. Plaintiff
says the ALJ relied on his own subjective and biased views
and disregarded the severity of Plaintiff's impairments
and symptoms. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Stafford
correctly stated that the ALJ is allowed to determine the
credibility of witnesses and such determinations should not
be disturbed without compelling reasons. Furthermore, these
determinations must be supported in the record and the ALJ
must explain the bases for her credibility determinations.
Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ properly considered all
testimonial statements and evidence in the record in an
unbiased fashion, but duly noted Plaintiff's credibility
issues, concluding that inconsistencies between