United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Patricia T. Morris, Magistrate Judge.
OPINION
AND ORDER (1) REJECTING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE
MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 17) AND
(2) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(ECF NO. 16) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 14) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 12)
LINDA
V. PARKER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff
Susan Unger (“Plaintiff”) initiated this lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review
of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security's denial of
her application for Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security
Act. (ECF No. 1.) This matter was referred to Magistrate
Judge Morris pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B)
and (C). (ECF No. 3.)
Both
parties filed summary judgment motions. (ECF No. 12, 14.)
Magistrate Judge Morris entered a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”). (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff filed timely
Objections to the R&R, and Defendant filed a timely
Reply. (ECF No. 17, 19.)
Standard
of Review
When
objections are filed to a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation on a dispositive matter, the Court
“make[s] a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). The Court, however, “is not required
to articulate all of the reasons it rejects a party's
objections.” Thomas v. Halter, 131 F.Supp.2d
942, 944 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (citations omitted). A party's
failure to file objections to certain conclusions of the
report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal
on those issues. See Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of
Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987).
Likewise, the failure to object to certain conclusions in the
magistrate judge's report releases the Court from its
duty to independently review those issues. See Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Analysis
The
Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate
Judge Morris's R&R and rejects them.
First,
Plaintiff objects to the R&R claiming that it
“includes an ahistorical summary of the evidence in the
record that is unreliable, inaccurate, incomplete and
misleading.” (Objs., ECF No. 17 at 13-14, Pg. ID
980-981.) However, Plaintiff's objection fails to
identify any factual errors. Thus, this Court is satisfied
with the R&R and the Magistrate Judge's summary of
the relevant medical and non-medical evidence. (See
R&R, ECF No. 16 at 4-15, Pg. ID 931-942 (summarizing the
administrative record).)
Second,
Plaintiff objects to the R&R claiming that the “ALJ
committed legal error in the determination of the
claimant's residual capacity by not including [certain]
limitations . . . and that the ALJ failed to properly
recognize how plaintiff's . . . symptoms prevent her from
maintaining a regular work schedule.” (Objs., ECF No.
17 at 15-20, Pg. ID 982-987.) The ALJ's decision
addressed this subject, making it clear that she fully
considered the medical evidence. (See R&R, ECF
No. 16 at 22, Pg. ID 949.) Thus, this Court is satisfied that
both the ALJ and Magistrate Judge properly considered all of
Plaintiff's medical evidence, including her enumerated
symptoms, in determining her residual functional capacity.
(See Id. at 19-32, Pg. ID 946-959.)
Third,
Plaintiff objects to the R&R claiming that the “ALJ
failed to properly apply SSR 96-9p.” (Objs., ECF No. 17
at 20-26, Pg. ID 987-993.) As Magistrate Judge Morris stated,
however, the ALJ properly addressed SSR 96-9p, explaining the
need for expert testimony and properly recognizing that
testimony as valid evidence. (See R&R, ECF No.
16 at 33, Pg. ID 960.) Thus, this Court is satisfied with
both the ALJ's and Magistrate Judge's application of
SSR 96-9p. (See Id. at 32-38, Pg. ID 959-965.)
Finally,
Plaintiff objects to the R&R claiming that, even if the
use of the vocational expert's testimony in the
application of SSR 96-9p was not error, the “ALJ still
failed to identify jobs which exist in significant numbers
that the claimant can perform without accommodation.”
(Objs., ECF No. 17 at 26-27, Pg. ID 993-994.) This objection
grows from Plaintiff's challenge to the vocational
expert's use of the word “accommodation” when
identifying available jobs. However, as Magistrate Judge
Morris articulated, the expert's testimony properly
identified available jobs. (See R&R, ECF No. 16
at 37-38, Pg. ID 964-965.) Thus, this Court is satisfied with
both the ALJ's and Magistrate Judge's interpretation
and application of the vocational expert's testimony.
(See Id. at 34- 38, Pg. ID 961-965.)
The
Court, therefore, is rejecting Plaintiff's Objections to
Magistrate Judge Morris's R&R and adopting the
R&R, which grants Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment and ...