Beveridge v. Social Security, Commissioner of
OPINION AND ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation Granting 12 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security, Commissioner of, Denying 9 Motion to Remand filed by Angela M Beveridge. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
ANGELA M. BEVERIDGE,
Case Number 10-12883
Honorable David M. Lawson
Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND,
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ,
AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER, AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT
The plaintiff filed the present action on July 22, 2010 seeking review of the Commissioner’s
decision denying the plaintiff’s claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits
under Title II of the Social Security Act and for supplemental security income under Title XVI of
the Social Security Act. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Virginia M.
Morgan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(b)(3) and was reassigned to
United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk on March 11, 2011. Thereafter, the plaintiff
filed a motion to remand the case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment requesting affirmance of the decision
of the Commissioner. Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk filed a report on July 18, 2011 recommending
that the plaintiff’s motion to remand be denied, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment be
granted, and the plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. The plaintiff filed timely objections to the report
and recommendation and the defendant filed a response. This matter is now before the Court.
When objections to a report and recommendation are filed, “[a] judge of the court shall make
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); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). The objections must be specific, Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006)
(“Overly general objections do not satisfy the objection requirement.”), and “clear enough to enable
the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious,” Miller v. Currie, 50
F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). When presented with proper objections, as here, the Court may not
simply concur in the magistrate judge’s findings; “it must conduct its own review in order to adopt
the recommendations.” McCombs v. Meijer, Inc., 395 F.3d 346, 360 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Massey
v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 510 (6th Cir. 1993)).
In this case, the plaintiff raised two main issues in her motion for summary judgment: (1) the
Administrative law Judge (ALJ) did not give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source
or give an adequate explanation for not doing so; and (2) the ALJ failed to engage in the analysis
required by Social Security Regulation (SSR) 99-2P for evaluating claims of Chronic Fatigue
Syndrome. In her objections, the plaintiff withdrew the second issue. With respect to the first issue,
the plaintiff also argues that patients with fibromyalgia may demonstrate fairly normal test results,
and therefore the usual recommended limitations were inapposite in her case.
The Court has conducted a thorough review of the administrative record, the parties
dispositive motions, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the plaintiff’s objections,
and the Commissioner’s response. The Court finds that Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk correctly
addressed the issue of the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. James Bash’s opinion. The Court cannot improve
on treatment of the issue and sees no useful purpose of repeating Judge Hluchaniuk’s rationale,
which the Court adopts as its own.
Therefore, after a de novo review of the entire record and the materials submitted by the
parties, the Court concludes that the magistrate judge properly reviewed the administrative record
and applied the correct law in reaching his conclusion. The Court has considered the plaintiff’s
objection to the report and finds it to lack merit.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [dkt
#14] is ADOPTED.
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s objections [dkt #17] are OVERRULED.
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to remand [dkt #9] is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment [dkt #12] is
It is further ORDERED that the findings of the Commissioner are AFFIRMED.
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s complaint [dkt. #1] is DISMISSED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: September 22, 2011
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on September 22, 2011.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?