United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AN RECOMMENDATION
[#14] TO GRANT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[#13] AND TO DENY PLAINTIFF'SMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PAGE HOOD CHIEF JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation
(Doc # 14) filed by Magistrate Judge David R. Grand to grant
the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
(Doc # 13) and to deny the Motion for Summary Judgment filed
by Plaintiff Jessica Helton (“Helton”) (Doc #
11). Helton has timely filed one objection to the Report and
Recommendation. (Doc # 15) The Commissioner has filed a
response to the objection. (Doc # 16) Having conducted a
de novo review of the parts of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a valid
objection has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1), the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation, GRANTS the Commissioner's Motion for
Summary Judgement, and DENIES Helton's Motion for Summary
background facts of this matter are adequately set forth in
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and the
Court adopts them here.
Standard of Review
standard of review by the district court when examining a
Report and Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
636. This Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or the
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which an
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” Id. In order to preserve the right to
appeal the magistrate judge's recommendation, a party
must file objections to the Report and Recommendation within
fourteen (14) days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file
specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right
of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985);
Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,
932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
objects to the Magistrate Judge's ruling that the ALJ
‘s residual functional capacity (“RFC”)
finding was supported by substantial evidence and claims that
the ALJ incorrectly weighed Helton's medical records.
Specifically, Helton argues that the ALJ “minimized the
documentation that emphasized her limitation, and her
testimony that she cannot handle a continuous work
environment.” In response, the Commissioner asserts
that the ALJ's RFC finding is supported by
substantial evidence. The Commissioner additionally argues
that Helton fails to identify any specific errors that the
Magistrate Judge made in his Report and Recommendation.
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that there was
substantial evidence for a finding that the ALJ's RFC
determination was satisfactory. The record demonstrates that
the ALJ thoroughly evaluated the pertinent medical evidence
and made detailed findings. (Doc # 7-2, Pg ID 46-52) There is
no support for Helton's argument that the ALJ minimized
any documentation and Helton does not inform the Court of how
the ALJ did not properly consider any relevant documents. As
to Helton's testimony regarding her ability to handle a
continuous work environment, the Court notes that the ALJ did
take such testimony into consideration when making her
decision. (Id. at 48.)
objection is overruled.
reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate
Judge David R. Grand's Report and Recommendation (Doc #
14) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court's findings of
fact and conclusions of law.
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security's Motion for Summary ...