United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Anthony P. Patti Mag. Judge
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATTI'S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION 
E. LEVY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 26, 2018, Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti issued a
Report and Recommendation recommending the Court deny
plaintiff's motion for remand (Dkt. 15), grant
defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 17), and
affirm the Commissioner's decision to deny plaintiff
benefits under the Social Security Act. (Dkt. 19.)
filed three timely objections to Magistrate Judge Patti's
Report and Recommendation on February 26, 2018. (Dkt. 20.)
Where a magistrate judge has submitted a Report and
Recommendation and a party has timely filed objections to
some or all of the Report and Recommendation, the Court must
review de novo those parts of the Report and
Recommendation to which the party has objected. 28 U.S.C.
Court adopts by reference the background set forth in the
Report and Recommendation, having reviewed it and found it to
be accurate and sufficiently thorough. (Dkt. 19 at 2-6.)
Court's review of a determination of the Commissioner of
Social Security “is limited to determining whether it
is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to
proper legal standards.” Rogers v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir.2007).
“Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance but
more than a scintilla; it refers to relevant evidence that a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Gentry v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., 741 F.3d 708, 722 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing
Rogers, 486 F.3d at 241). When determining
“whether substantial evidence supports the
[Administrative Law Judge's (“ALJ”)]
decision, [the Court does] not try the case de novo, resolve
conflicts in evidence, or decide questions of credibility.
Instead, [the Court] considers the ALJ's decision
determinative if there is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support the
ALJ's conclusion.” Bass v. McMahon, 499
F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal citations and
Objection No. 1
Plaintiff's first objection to Magistrate Judge
Patti's Report and Recommendation is that it improperly
rejects plaintiff's argument that the ALJ erred in
evaluating the credibility of the various doctors who
examined and treated plaintiff for his alleged disability.
(Dkt. 20 at 1-5.) Plaintiff explains the conclusions of the
various doctors that treated him, and explains why the ALJ
erred in the weight he assigned to each of them.
argument is not proper at this stage of the proceedings. A
district court does not weigh evidence when reviewing an
ALJ's decision, and “if substantial evidence
supports the ALJ's decision, [this Court] defer[s] to
that finding ‘even if there is substantial evidence in
the record that would have supported an opposite
conclusion.'” Blakley v. Comm'r Of Soc.
Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Key
v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)); see
also Mullins v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs.,
836 F.2d 980, 984 (“Claimant's argument rests
solely on the weight to be given opposing medical opinions,
which is clearly not a basis for our setting aside the
ALJ's factual findings.”).
other words, it is not this Court's role to go back
through the record and determine which doctor's testimony
should be given which amount of weight. Instead, the District
Court is limited to determining only if there was
“substantial evidence” supporting the ALJ's
conclusions. As Magistrate Judge Patti explains in the Report
and Recommendation, there is substantial evidence supporting
the ALJ's weight determinations for each doctor, and the
ALJ complied with the Social Security Administration's
regulations for supporting his credibility determinations.
(Dkt. 19 at 10-14.) See 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6) (laying out factors for
weighing doctors' opinions); Francis v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 414 F. App'x 802, 804-05 (6th Cir. 2011)
(explaining that the regulations require only “good
reasons for the weight given to the treating source's
opinion[, ] not an exhaustive factor-by-factor
analysis.”) (internal formatting omitted). Accordingly,
the reasoning in the Report and Recommendation is adopted and
plaintiff's first objection is overruled.
Objection No. 2
second objection to the Report and Recommendation is that the
Magistrate Judge improperly adopted the ALJ's
determination regarding plaintiff's credibility. (Dkt. 20
at 5-6.) Specifically, plaintiff suggests the ALJ's
credibility determination is inconsistent with the ...