United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
DARRELL R. ZIBBLE, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
Patricia T. Morris, Magistrate Judge.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (ECF #17); GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #15); DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #14)
Victoria A. Roberts, United States District Judge.
Darrell Zibble (“Zibble”) filed a claim for Title
II disability insurance benefits. The Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) denied this claim on April 11,
2018. Zibble and Defendant Commissioner of Social Security
filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge
Patricia T. Morris issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny
Zibble's Motion for Summary Judgment and grant
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Zibble timely
Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Morris's analysis and
ADOPTS the R&R. The Court
GRANTS Commissioner's Motion for Summary
Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
party properly objects to any part of a magistrate
judge's report and recommendation, the Court reviews
these portions de novo. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The
party must object to specific portions of the report, citing
a specific source of error, to be entitled to de
novo review. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636,
637 (6th Cir. 1986). General objections that do not cite a
point of error are not valid objections and have “the
same effects as would a failure to object.” Howard
v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505,
509 (6th Cir. 1991). In effect the Court may treat such
objections as waived. See Bellmore-Byrne v. Comm'r of
Soc. Sec., No. 15-11950, 2016 WL 5219541, at *1 (E.D.
Mich. Sept. 22, 2016).
Zibble's objections is barred. It is simply a restatement
of a previous argument. Zibble argues that the ALJ failed to
develop the record or make findings regarding dosages and
amounts of medications that Zibble was taking. Zibble says
this approach conflicts with Sixth Circuit precedent.
However, this merely restates an argument made in
Zibble's brief and is waived. Zibble makes several
arguments regarding the side effects of narcotic medications.
The other objections about medication side effects were made
properly, but Zibble's complaint regarding the
responsibility of the ALJ to make specific findings about the
dosage of medications is waived because it is a restatement.
is also barred from raising new issues in his objections if
he did not raise them in his original petition. Murr v.
United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 n. 1 (6th Cir. 2000).
Therefore, Zibble's argument that the ALJ did not
properly consult with a medical advisor when determining the
RFC is not valid. Zibble argues that the RFC assessment must
link the ALJ's findings to specific RFC capabilities;
however, since Zibble is raising this issue for the first
time in his objection to the R&R, it is waived.
above arguments are barred on procedural grounds.
Zibble's properly made objections are now considered on
Zibble argues that the ALJ did not properly consider the side
effects of narcotic medications when calculating the Residual
first objection is that he has significant side effects from
taking several narcotic medications, and that the ALJ failed
to account for these side effects when calculating the
Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”). The alleged
side effects are (1) drowsiness, (2) dizziness, and (3)
nausea. Zibble does not press his argument about the effect
of nausea on his ability to perform light work; therefore,
the Court will focus on the complaints of drowsiness and
dizziness. In his Reply to the Commissioner's response to
the original Objections, Zibble also claims broadly that his
past highly skilled work “is not always congruent to
being under the influence of narcotic medications, ”
without specifying further. Doc. No. 22 at PageID.795. The
Court will consider this and other references to Zibble's
alleged social limitations to be a reference to the impact of
narcotic medications on his mental state.