Grubb v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 18

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation for Granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security, Commissioner of, Denying 13 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Russell L Grubb re 16 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Russell L. Grubb,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-14755
Honorable Sean F. Cox
Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub

Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff brought this action seeking judicial review of Defendant the Commissioner of Social
Security’s determination that he is not entitled to social security benefits for his physical and mental
impairments under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. #1).
Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
(Doc. #13 and Doc. #15). These motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub for
issuance of a report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On September 11, 2013, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) wherein she recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
and grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket Entry No. 16). Plaintiff timely filed
objections to this R&R. (Doc. #17).
Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a
matter by a Magistrate Judge must filed objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after being

1

served with a copy of the R&R. “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Id.
Having considered Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R, the Court finds the objections to be
without merit. The Court shall therefore adopt the R&R, deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, and grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
ANALYSIS
Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s September 11, 2013 R&R recommends that the Court deny
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment sought to have the Court reverse the Administrative Law
Judge’s (ALJ) conclusion that Plaintiff’s mental impairments are not severe because this conclusion,
Plaintiff alleges, is contrary to the evidence presented. (Pl.’s Br. at 6). Plaintiff also argued that
even though Plaintiff’s depression was construed as a non-severe impairment, the ALJ further erred
when he failed to take into account any limitations caused by Plaintiff’s non-severe impairments
when determining Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). (Pl.’s Br. at 8).
Defendant cross-motioned for summary judgment, arguing that the ALJ’s characterization
of Plaintiff’s mental impairment was supported by substantial evidence and that Plaintiff presented
no evidence of functional limitations based on his mental impairment, whether the impairment
severe or non-severe. (Def.’s Br. at 4, 8).
Magistrate Judge Majzoub recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion and grant
Defendant’s motion because the ALJ relied on substantial evidence, including Plaintiff’s physicians’
reports and notes, in concluding that Plaintiff does not suffer from a severe impairment due to his
depression and anxiety. (R&R at 10). Magistrate Judge Majzoub also found that Plaintiff did not

2

allege, nor did the record show, that Plaintiff’s depression and anxiety caused any limitation in his
ability to perform basic work activities. (R&R at 10).
In objecting to the September 11, 2013 R&R, Plaintiff raises one objection: that Magistrate
Judge Majzoub “erred in finding that the ALJ was not obliged to consider plaintiff’s mental
impairments in assessing his residual functional capacity” (Pl.’s Obj. at 2).
Plaintiff’s objection misconstrues the report and recommendation. Magistrate Judge
Majzoub noted that “Plaintiff is correct that the ALJ did not include any functional limitations based
on Plaintiff’s non-severe mental impairments, other than his own subjective complaints of ‘daytime
somnolence’ and that ‘he did not feel like doing anything or going out . . . .’” (R&R at 11).
Magistrate Judge Majzoub went on to dispense with Plaintiff’s argument, however, finding that
“Plaintiff did not and does not allege even minimal functional limitations.” (R&R at 11).
Thus, Magistrate Judge Majzoub did not find that the ALJ was not required to consider
Plaintiff’s non-severe mental impairments in assessing his RFC. Rather, Magistrate Judge Majzoub
found that the ALJ was correct in not further analyzing Plaintiff’s non-severe impairments for
evidence of limitations because Plaintiff presented no evidence of functional limitations related to
his non-severe impairments. (See R&R at 11).
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s objections to the September 11, 2013 R&R
are without merit and shall ADOPT AND ACCEPT the September 11, 2013 R&R. Thus, the Court
shall DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANT Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above IT IS ORDERED that the Court ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS

3

the September 11, 2013 R&R. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint shall be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: November 27, 2013
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
November 27, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager

4