Funderburg v. Social Security

Filing 22

ORDER Accepting 19 Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Action. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DUANE FUNDERBURG,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-10068
Hon. Denise Page Hood

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
and
DISMISSING ACTION
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s
Report and Recommendation. [Doc. No. 19, filed February 5, 2016] Timely
objections and a response to the objections were filed in this matter. [Doc. Nos. 20]
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
eidence, 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 conclusions for the proper reasons. Plaintiff
objects to the Magistrate Judge’s: (a) alleged failure to consider severe
impairments, including prostate cancer, thus formulating a faulty residual
functional capacity, (b) acceptance of the ALJ’s credibility assessment, which
Plaintiff contends violates SSR 96-7, and (c) finding that the Commissioner proved
the existence of step five of the sequential analysis.
In reviewing Plaintiff’s filings in this Court, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s
objections are merely a restatement the arguments he presented in his summary
judgment brief,1 an approach that is not appropriate or sufficient. See, e.g.,
O’Connell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2016 WL 537771, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 11,
2016) (citing Betancourt v. Ace Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, 313 F.Supp.2d 32, 34

In fact, the overwhelming majority of the text in Plaintiff’s Objections has been
pulled verbatim from his summary judgment brief. For Objection 1, compare
Docket No. 14, at 18-19 with Docket No. 20, at 2-3; for Objection 2, compare
Docket No. 14, at 20 with Docket No. 20, at 3-4; and for Objection 3, compare
Docket No. 14, at 24-25 with Docket No. 20, at 5.
1

2

(D.P.R. 2004)); Davis v. Caruso, No. 07-10115, 2008 WL 540818, at *2 (E.D.
Mich. Feb. 25, 2008) (denying an objection to an R&R where, among other things,
Plaintiff “merely rehashe[d] his arguments”). As the Western District of Michigan
has explained:
This Court is not obligated to address objections made in this form
because the objections fail to identify the specific errors in the
magistrate judge’s proposed recommendations, and such objections
undermine the purpose of the Federal Magistrate’s Act…which serves
to reduce duplicative work and conserve judicial resources.”
Owens v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 12-47, 2013 WL 1304470, at *3 (W.D. Mich.
Mar. 28, 2013) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). See also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2) (objecting party is required to “file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations” ). As Plaintiff has failed to file specific
written

objections

to

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

proposed

findings

and

recommendations, the Court need not and does not analyze his objections.
The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as
this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Mona K. Majzoub [Doc. No. 19, filed February 5, 2016] is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections [Doc. No. 20,
filed February 18, 2016] are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 14, filed July 1, 2015] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 16, filed August 7, 2015] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with
prejudice.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: March 22, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on March 22, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4