United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Patricia T. Morris, Magistrate Judge.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (ECF #19); GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #17); DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #13)
Victoria A. Roberts, United States District Judge.
31, 2019, Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris issued a Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that
the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
and grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff timely objected (R. 13) and Commissioner replied
(R. 17). The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Morris's
analysis and ADOPTS the R&R. The Court
GRANTS the Commissioner's Motion for
Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff's
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). This de novo review requires
the court to re-examine all of the relevant evidence
previously reviewed by the magistrate judge in order to
determine whether the recommendation should be accepted,
rejected, or modified in whole or in part. Cole v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 105 F.Supp.3d 738, 741 (E.D.
Mich. 2015); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff makes
several proper objections regarding findings of the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and Magistrate
Judge. The Court addresses these in turn.
The Magistrate Judge Did Not Err in Characterization of
Plaintiff's Primary Complaint as Related to His Heart
Problems-The ALJ Properly Addressed Complaints of Back and
contends that the ALJ erred in characterizing his complaint
as being mostly about health issues related to his heart, and
minimized any potential disability stemming from back or knee
pain. The ALJ did address Plaintiff's back and knee pain
at length (R. 8 at PageID.43, 45-46) before concluding that
Plaintiff “complained mostly of limitations due to his
heart condition” (R. 8 at PageID 46).
Magistrate Judge also considered Plaintiff's back and
knee complaints. R&R at 12. Given the attention to
Plaintiff's back and knee problems, it cannot be said
that the ALJ or Magistrate Judge ignored or dismissed this
part of the Plaintiff's complaint.
hearing transcript reveals that the ALJ split his questions
to Plaintiff about evenly between questions about
Plaintiff's heart and questions relating to his back or
knee (five questions about Plaintiff's heart versus seven
about Plaintiff's back and knee (R. 8 at PageID.60-62)).
Plaintiff also brought up his heart when questioned about his
daily activity; he did not bring up his back or knee. R. 8 at
complaint that the ALJ focused on his heart problems is
without merit. The Magistrate Judge properly determined that
the ALJ based his conclusion on substantial evidence.
The Magistrate Judge Properly Considered Errors and Found
Them to Be Harmless
second, third, and fourth objections can be grouped together.
Each is about a technically incorrect statement from the ALJ.
The Magistrate Judge ...