Colon-Lockhart v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 29

ORDER denying 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 22 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Anita Colon-Lockhart,
Plaintiff,
Case No: 14-14336
Hon. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
v.
Commissioner of
Social Security,

Defendant.
/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I.

Introduction
Plaintiff Anita Colon-Lockhart (“Colon-Lockhart”) appeals the Commissioner of

Social Security’s denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits. The parties
filed cross-motions for summary judgment which the Court referred to Magistrate Judge
R. Steven Whalen. In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated December 29,
2015, Magistrate Judge Whalen recommended Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted. Colon-Lockhart timely objected. The objections are fully briefed.
The Court ADOPTS the R&R. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED; Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

1

II.

Discussion
Colon-Lockhart appeals the Commissioner’s denial on her application for

Disability Insurance Benefits.
The Court conducted a de novo review of the R&R and the record in light of
Colon-Lockhart’s objections. Where a Magistrate Judge’s R&R is objected to, the
district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which an
objection has been made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The district judge may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28
U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C). After completing a de novo review, there is no requirement that
the district court articulate all of the reasons it rejects a party's objections. Thomas v.
Halter, 131 F. Supp. 2d 942, 944 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
Colon-Lockhart submitted several objections that are not numbered or otherwise
organized. Essentially, however, the objections are that the Magistrate Judge erred by:
(1) finding the ALJ decision was supported by substantial evidence because the
hypothetical question that formed the basis for the VE testimony assumed a greater
level of functioning than the ALJ ultimately found; (2) finding medical evidence
supported the ALJ’s finding that none of Colon-Lockhart’s impairments equaled any of
the listings in Defendant’s Regulation; (3) determining that Colon-Lockhart argued she
met Listing 14.00; (4) finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s credibility
finding; and (5) confirming the medical treatment Colon-Lockhart received did not
support her testimony of disabling pain.
Magistrate Judge Whalen thoroughly lays out the facts, relevant portions of the
2

administrative record, and the procedural history of the case in his R&R. In considering
the record, Magistrate Judge Whalen applies relevant case law and gives well reasoned
explanations for his conclusions. None of Colon-Lockhart’s objections has merit.
III.

Conclusion
The Court ADOPTS the R&R. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED; Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Judgement will enter in favor of Defendant.
IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: March 25, 2016
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on
March 25, 2016.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

3