United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
JOSHUA J. HARRISON, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S AUGUST 15, 2019 REPORT AND
G. EDMUNDS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
filed this action seeking review of the Commissioner of
Social Security's decision denying his application for
disability insurance. The Court referred the matter to the
Magistrate Judge, who recommends denying Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment, granting Defendant's motion
for summary judgment, and affirming the Commissioner's
decision. (Dkt. 19.) Plaintiff makes one objection to the
Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, and
Defendant has responded to that objection. (Dkts. 20, 21.)
Having conducted a de novo review of the part of the
Magistrate Judge's report to which a specific objection
has been filed, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objection
and ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation. As a
result, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment (Dkt. 13); GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary
judgment (Dkt. 16); and AFFIRMS the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
Standard of Review
De Novo Review of Objections
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), “[t]he
district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly
objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify
the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or
return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” See also 28 U.S.C. §
Substantial Evidence Standard
court must affirm the Commissioner's conclusions absent a
determination that the Commissioner has failed to apply the
correct legal standards or has made findings of fact
unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.”
Walters v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525,
528 (6th Cir. 1997) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)).
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.'” Rogers v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir.
2007) (quoting Cutlip v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994)).
Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial
evidence, it must be affirmed, even if the reviewing court
would decide the matter differently, see Kinsella v.
Schweiker, 708 F.2d 1058, 1059 (6th Cir. 1983), and even
if substantial evidence also supports another conclusion,
Her v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 203 F.3d 388, 389-90
(6th Cir. 1999). “The substantial evidence standard
presupposes that there is a ‘zone of choice' within
which the [Commissioner] may proceed without interference
from the courts.” Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d
1027, 1035 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting Mullen v. Bowen,
800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986)).
objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that the ALJ
did not err when she found that Plaintiff's impairments
did not meet or medically equal the criteria of Listing
1.04A. More specifically, Plaintiff argues that the reliance
on the medical opinion of Dr. Tsai was erroneous and that the
ALJ failed to discuss certain evidence in the record.
Defendant notes, Plaintiff is primarily rehashing arguments
he made before the Magistrate Judge.
This Court is not obligated to address objections made in
this form because the objections fail to identify the
specific errors in the magistrate judge's proposed
recommendations, and such objections undermine the purpose of
the Federal Magistrate's Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, which
serves to reduce duplicative work and conserve judicial
Owens v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12-CV-47,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44411, at *8 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2013)
(citations omitted). Nonetheless, the Court has considered
Plaintiff's arguments regarding whether his impairments
meet Listing ...