United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. MAJZOUB MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION ;
OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION ; GRANTING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ; DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
J. TARNOW SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Michael Sims seeks judicial review of the decision of an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denying his
application for disability benefits. Plaintiff, through
counsel, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment  on October
19, 2017. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment 
on October 27, 2017. On June 28, 2018, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation 
(“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant
Defendant's Motion and deny Plaintiff's Motion.
Plaintiff filed an Objection to the R&R  on July 7,
2018. Defendant filed a Reply  on July 9, 2018.
reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the
R&R . Plaintiff's Objection  is
OVERRULED. Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment  is GRANTED.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment  is
and Procedural Background
Magistrate Judge summarized the record as follows:
Plaintiff protectively filed an application for supplemental
security income on June 19, 2014, alleging that he has been
disabled since September 1, 2010, due to the human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), a closed head injury, and
depression. The Social Security Administration denied
Plaintiff's claims on October 22, 2014, and Plaintiff
requested a de novo hearing. On March 1, 2016,
Plaintiff appeared with a representative and testified at the
hearing before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Joy A. Turner.
The ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on April 7, 2016, and
the Appeals Council declined to review the decision.
Plaintiff then commenced this action for judicial review, and
the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, which
are currently before the Court.
Hearing Testimony and Medical Evidence
In his brief, Plaintiff sets forth the procedural history of
this matter and provides a brief “Statement of Relevant
Facts, ” which primarily consists of a summary of the
ALJ's decision. The ALJ summarized Plaintiff's
hearing testimony, Plaintiff's medical record, and the
vocational expert's (VE's) testimony in her decision.
Defendant adopts the ALJ's recitation of the facts.
Having conducted an independent review of Plaintiff's
medical record and the hearing transcript, the undersigned
finds that there are no material inconsistencies between
these recitations of the record. Therefore, in lieu of
re-summarizing this information, the undersigned will
incorporate the above-cited factual recitations by reference
and will also make references and citations to the record as
necessary to address the parties' arguments throughout
this Report and Recommendation.
Administrative Law Judge's Determination
The ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial
gainful activity since the application date of June 19, 2014,
and that Plaintiff suffered from the severe impairments of
HIV, fractures of left upper extremity, intracranial injury,
seizure disorder, and affective disorder. Additionally, the
ALJ found that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or
medically equal the severity of an impairment listed in 20
C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. The ALJ then found
that Plaintiff had the following residual functional capacity
[C]laimant has the residual functional capacity to perform
sedentary work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(a) except [he]
can occasionally climb stairs and ramps; cannot climb
ladders, ropes or scaffolds; and can occasionally balance,
stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. The claimant needs to avoid
concentrated exposure to extreme cold, heat, wetness,
humidity, and needs to avoid all exposure to pulmonary
irritants, hazardous machinery, and unprotected heights. The
claimant is limited to simple, routine tasks with occasional
interaction with [the] public, co-workers and supervisors.
Subsequently, in reliance on the VE's testimony, the ALJ
determined that Plaintiff was capable of performing a
significant number of jobs in the national economy.
Therefore, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled
under the Social Security Act at any ...