Sarver v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 21

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation for 15 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security, Commissioner of, 17 Report and Recommendation, 10 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Paul E Sarver Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JEAN HARBIN, on behalf of
PAUL SARVER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case. No. 11-15699
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse,
in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on August 29, 2013
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff filed this action seeking Social Security disability benefits. The matter currently before the
Court is Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [dkt 17], in which the Magistrate Judge recommends
that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [dkt 10] be denied and Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [dkt 15] be granted. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation [dkt
19]. The Court has thoroughly reviewed the court file, the respective motions, the Report and Recommendation,
and Plaintiff’s objections. For the reasons discussed below, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Court will, however, briefly address Plaintiff’s objections.
II. OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff raises two objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court notes
at the outset that Plaintiff’s Objections are essentially restatements of the arguments set forth in his Motion for
Summary Judgment, which were adequately addressed by the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations. Notwithstanding this, the objections are largely based on claims that there is evidence to
conflict the evidence relied upon by the Appeals Council or that substantial evidence exists to support a finding in
Plaintiff’s favor on a particular issue. Even if true, however, these claims are not dispositive if “it is also true that
substantial evidence supports [Defendant’s] finding.” Casey v. Sec’y of Health & Human Svc’s, 987 F.2d 1230,
1235 (6th Cir. 1993). As noted by the Magistrate Judge, there is substantial evidence to support the Appeals
Council’s determinations with respect to the medical source opinions and credibility of Plaintiff. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s objections are not well-taken.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [dkt 10] is DENIED, and Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment [dkt 15] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 29, 2013

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE