Alexander v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 13

ORDER Adopting Magistrate Judge's 10 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RANDY THOMAS ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-11696
Honorable Denise Page Hood

COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder’s
Report and Recommendation on Defendant Commissioner’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Docket No. 5, filed July 1, 2013]. Plaintiff Randy Thomas Alexander
filed an Objection to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation [Docket No.
11, June 10, 2014]. Defendant filed a Response to the Objection [Docket No. 12,
filed June 24, 2014]. For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Defendant
Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 5, filed July 1, 2013] is
GRANTED.
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to
determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in

reaching his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The
credibility findings of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) must not be discarded
lightly and should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health
and Human Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court’s review
of an ALJ’s decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve
conflicts in the evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at
397. The decision of the Commissioner must be upheld if supported by substantial
evidence, even if the record might support a contrary decision or if the district
court arrives at a different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d 106,
108 (6th Cir. 1984); Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).
The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the
Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusion for the proper reasons. The Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the 60-day statute of limitations in filing a
Social Security appeal was not satisfied, and equitable tolling does not apply. The
Magistrate Judge reviewed the record thoroughly in reaching his conclusion. The
Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the filing of an extension with the
Appeals Council after the limitation period does not impact the analysis.
Plaintiff’s objections do not address the issue of why despite being represented by

2

counsel, Plaintiff did not file an extension of time until after the filing deadline had
passed.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Charles E. Binder [Docket No. 10, filed May 27, 2014] is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED as this Court’s findings and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner’s Motion to
Dismiss [Docket No. 5, filed July 1, 2013] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: July 20, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on July 20, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3