United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
MARY C. GANT-HOLMES, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
R. GRAND UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S
OBJECTION [#17], ADOPTING THE JUNE 4, 2019 REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [#16], GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#14], AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#12]
Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Mary C. Gant-Holmes
and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's
Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 12; Dkt. No. 14.
Previously, Defendant denied Plaintiff's application for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the
Social Security Act (the “Act”). In turn,
Plaintiff initiated the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) challenging the Commissioner's decision.
Court referred the parties' Motions for Summary Judgment
to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand, who issued a Report and
Recommendation Granting Defendant's Motion and Denying
Plaintiff's Motion. Dkt. No. 16. Plaintiff has now filed
an Objection to that Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 17.
before the Court is Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate
Judge Grand's June 4, 2019 Report and Recommendation.
Id. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will
Overrule Plaintiff's Objection [#17], Adopt Magistrate
Judge Grand's Report and Recommendation [#16], Grant
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [#14], and Deny
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [#12].
Judge Grand's Report and Recommendation set forth the
relevant background in this case. The Court will adopt those
Gant-Holmes was 59 years old at the time of her alleged onset
date of July 15, 2013, and at 5'6” tall weighed
approximately 196 pounds during the relevant time period. She
received her GED in 1990. She reported previous work as a
babysitter, cashier, factory assembler, factory utility
worker, and resident care in a nursing facility. She now
alleges disability primarily as a result of spinal stenosis
with chronic back pain, uncontrolled type II diabetes,
depression, and hypertension.
After Gant-Holmes's applications for DIB and SSI were
denied at the initial level on November 18, 2015, she timely
requested an administrative hearing, which was held on June
2, 2017 before ALJ Thomas L. Walters. Gant-Holmes, who was
represented by attorney Samuel Earley, testified at the
hearing, as did vocational expert Heather Benton. On August
21, 2017, the ALJ issued a written decision finding that
Gant-Holmes is not disabled under the Act. On May 16, 2018,
the Appeals Council denied review. Gant-Holmes timely filed
for judicial review of the final decision on July 9, 2018.
Dkt. No. 16, p. 2 (Pg. ID 612) (internal citations omitted).
district court has jurisdiction to review the
Commissioner's final administrative decision pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 405(g).” Sparrow v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., 2016 WL 1658305, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 30,
2016). “The district court's review is restricted
solely to determining whether the ‘Commissioner has
failed to apply the correct legal standard or has made
findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence in the
record.'” Id. (quoting Sullivan v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 595 Fed.Appx. 502, 506 (6th
Cir. 2014)). “Substantial evidence is ‘more than
a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.'” Id.
(quoting Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d
234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007).
Court must examine the administrative record as a whole, and
may consider any evidence in the record, regardless of
whether it has been cited by the ALJ.” Id.
“The Court will not ‘try the case de novo, nor
resolve conflicts in the evidence, nor decide questions of
credibility.'” Id. (quoting Cutlip v.
Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286
(6th Cir. 1994)). “If the Commissioner's decision
is supported by substantial evidence, ‘it must be
affirmed even if the reviewing court would ...