United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. Majzoub Magistrate Judge
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (Doc. # 21); (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. # 19); AND (3) DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. # 16)
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge
Royalty (“Royalty”) filed an application for
Social Security disability benefits on March 26, 2014. She
claims she has been disabled since September 1, 2012 due to
osteoarthritis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, depression,
osteopenia, and carpal tunnel syndrome. Royalty brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). She appeals the
denial of disability benefits by the Commissioner of Social
Security (the “Commissioner”). The Appeals
Council denied Royalty's Request for Review of the
decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”). That ALJ decision stands as the
Commissioner's final decision. The parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court referred those
motions to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub.
motion for summary judgment, Royalty argues: 1) the ALJ
failed to consider the effect of Royalty's obesity on her
residual functional capacity (“RFC”), as required
by Social Security regulations; 2) the ALJ committed
reversible error by failing to consider whether her obesity
equals an impairment found in the listing of impairments,
specifically Listing 1.04A; and 3) the ALJ's credibility
findings are not supported by substantial evidence.
Commissioner argues in its motion for summary judgment that:
1) the ALJ properly considered Royalty's obesity in
assessing her RFC and whether she was impaired under Listing
1.04; 2) Royalty failed to show that she meets all the
specified medical criteria, even considering her obesity, for
a Listing 1.04 impairment; and 3) substantial evidence
supports the ALJ's conclusion that Royalty's
statements as to the intensity, persistence, and limiting
symptoms of her impairments were not entirely supported.
Judge Majzoub issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”). She recommends that the Court grant
the Commissioner's motion and deny Royalty's.
Magistrate Judge Majzoub concluded that: 1) the ALJ
adequately considered Royalty's obesity in accordance
with Social Security Regulation in determining her RFC and
her possible impairments under Listing 1.04; 2) Royalty did
not demonstrate that she experienced the simultaneous
presence of all of the medical criteria in Listing 1.04A for
a continuous 12 months, as required; and, 3) the ALJ's
assessment of Royalty's credibility is supported by
filed three objections, arguing that Magistrate Judge
Majzoub: 1) was too easily satisfied that the ALJ's
treatment of the effects of her impairments was supported by
substantial evidence; 2) erred in upholding the ALJ's
Listing 1.04 determination as supported by substantial
evidence; and 3) erred in upholding the ALJ's finding
that her credibility was not supported by substantial
Standard of Review
person may seek judicial review of any final decision of the
Commissioner; however, the findings of the Commissioner as to
any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be
conclusive. 42 U.S.C. § 405.
evidence is more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a
preponderance … .” Brainard v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679, 681 (6th Cir.
1989) (citing Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S.
197, 229 (1938)). It exists when a reasonable mind could
accept the evidence as adequate to support the challenged
conclusion, even if that evidence could also support the
opposite conclusion. Casey v. Sec'y of Health and
Human Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993). And,
if the Commissioner's decision is supported by
substantial evidence, it must stand, regardless of whether
the Court would resolve the disputed facts differently.
Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 347 (6th Cir.
proper objections are made, the Court conducts a de
novo review of a Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation on a dispositive motion. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); F. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Id. A
district court need not conduct de novo review where
the objections are “[f]rivolous, conclusive or
general.” Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637
(6th Cir.1986) (citation omitted); see also Rice v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 169 Fed.Appx. 452, 453-54 (6th
Cir. 2006) (“issues adverted to in a perfunctory
manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed
argumentation, are deemed waived.”) (quoting
McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th
Cir.1997)). After completing a de novo review, there
is no requirement that the district court articulate all of
the reasons it rejects a party's objections. Tuggle
v. Seabold, 806 F.2d 87, 93 (6th Cir. 1986);
Dickey-Williams v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 975
F.Supp.2d 792, 798 (E.D. Mich. 2013).
de novo review of the cross motions for summary
judgment, the R&R, Royalty's objections, the
Commissioner's response, and the remainder of the ...