United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS , ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION , DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT , AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
("SSA") denied Jonathan Wesley Bean's
application for supplemental security income and disability
insurance benefits in a decision issued by an Administrative
Law Judge ("ALJ"). ECF 7-2, PgID 112–22.
After the SSA Appeals Council declined to review the ruling,
Bean appealed. See Bean v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec,
2:15-cv-11989 (E.D. Mich. June 2, 2019). On January 27, 2016,
Judge Bernard A. Friedman remanded the case for further
administrative proceedings. ECF 7-14, PgID 794â807.
September 22, 2016, the ALJ held a new hearing and determined
that Bean was not disabled within the meaning of the Social
Security Act. ECF 7-12, PgID 655– 77. Bean again
appealed to the SSA Appeals Council, and the council again
denied the appeal. Id. at 641–44. Bean
appealed the denial. ECF 1. The Court referred the matter to
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti and the parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF 2, 11, 14. The
magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation
("Report") and advised the Court to deny Bean's
motion and grant the Commissioner's motion. ECF 15. Bean
timely objected to the Report. ECF 16. After examining the
record and considering Bean's objections, the Court
concludes that his arguments lack merit. The Court will
therefore overrule Bean's objections, adopt the
Report's findings, deny Bean's motion for summary
judgment, and grant the Commissioner's motion for summary
Report properly details the events giving rise to Bean's
action against the Commissioner. ECF 15, PgID 1222–26.
The Court will adopt that portion of the Report.
who receive an adverse final decision from the Commissioner
of Social Security may appeal the decision to a federal
district court. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). When reviewing a
case under § 405(g), the 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) (citations omitted). Substantial evidence consists of
"more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a
preponderance" such that "a reasonable mind might
accept [the evidence] as adequate to support a
conclusion." Cutlip v. Sec'y of Health &
Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994) (citation
omitted). An ALJ may consider the entire body of evidence
without directly addressing each piece in his decision.
Loral Def. Sys.–Akron v. N.L.R.B., 200 F.3d
436, 453 (6th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). "Nor must
an ALJ make explicit credibility findings as to each bit of
conflicting testimony, so long as his factual findings as a
whole show that he implicitly resolved such conflicts."
Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted)
Rule 72(b) governs the review of a magistrate judge's
report. A district court's standard of review depends on
whether a party files objections. The Court need not
undertake any review of portions of the Report to which no
party has objected. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
149–50 (1985). De novo review is required, however, if
the parties "serve and file specific written objections
to the proposed findings and recommendations."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). When conducting a de novo review, the
Court "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter
to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed.R.Civ.P.
raises two objections. The Court will address each in turn.
I. Objection 1 First, Bean objects to the magistrate
judge's finding "that the ALJ's decision was
supported by substantial evidence." ECF 16, PgID 1251.
Bean does not, however, contest the magistrate judge's
specific findings. Instead, he makes broad claims that the
"ALJ and the [magistrate judge] misconstrued
evidence." Id. at 1252. But, Bean does
not point to any specific evidence to explain how the ALJ or
magistrate judge's determinations were inconsistent with
the evidence. Bean also contends that "SSA regulations
were not followed, " but does not cite any specific
regulations or explain what specific portions of the ALJ or
magistrate judge's opinions diverged from regulations.
Id. at 1251. Non-specific objections to a magistrate
judge's report and recommendation are improper and do not
require de novo review. See Jidas v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., No. 17-cv-14198, 2019 WL 1306172, at *1–2
(E.D. Mich. Mar. 22, 2019). The Court therefore need not
review Bean's first objection de novo.
claims that "the ALJ and [magistrate judge] misconstrued
evidence regarding his severe back problems, constant
headaches, the impact of his obesity on his abilities, and
his depression." ECF 16, PgID 1252. Bean does not,
however, state with particularity what evidence the ALJ or
the magistrate judge misconstrued, or how that evidence was
misconstrued. Bean's objection will be denied. II.
Objection II Second, Bean contends that the
magistrate judge "erred when he determined that the ALJ
properly evaluated and considered Plaintiff's obesity and
the side effects of Plaintiff's many medications."
ECF 16, PgID 1253. Bean's second objection rehashes
arguments he already presented in his motion for summary
judgment that the Report addressed and rejected.
Compare ECF 11, PgID 1180–82 with ECF
16, 1253–54. Bean's challenge was "not a
proper objection to the [Report, ] as required by
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), because it merely rehashe[s] [Bean's]
arguments." See Bentley v. Colvin, No.
16-11314, 2017 WL 3768941, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 31, 2017)
(citing Davis v. Caruso, No. 07-10115, 2008 WL
540818, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 25, 2008)). The Court is
therefore not obligated to address the objection.
Markgraff v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No.
17-cv-10511, 2018 WL 654838 at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31. 2018)
(citing Owens v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No.
1:12-CV-47 2013 WL 1304470 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2013)).
Bean's objection is misplaced. He alleges that the
ALJ's assessment of his obesity and medication side
effects "is simply conclusory." ECF 16, PgID 1254.
But the ALJ adequately reviewed and analyzed the facts
regarding Bean's obesity and medication side effects and
found that "the record [did] not demonstrate that
obesity or medication side effects over[rode] the
claimant's intact functioning to a disabling
degree." See ECF 7-12, PgID 672; see
also ECF 15, PgID 1234. The ALJ's finding was not
conclusory, and the Court will overrule Bean's second
Court has carefully reviewed the parties' motions, the
Report, and Bean's objections. The Court finds Bean's
objections meritless and agrees with the Report's
recommendation to grant the Commissioner's motion for