Erdmann v. Social Security, Commissioner of
ORDER Accepting 32 Report and Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff's 27 Motion for Summary Judgment and to Grant Defendant's 28 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
KIRK A. ERDMANN,
CASE NO. 15-10816
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC # 32)
TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC #
27) AND TO GRANT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (DOC # 28)
This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (Doc # 32)
filed by Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub on Plaintiff Kirk A. Erdmann’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 27), and Defendant Commissioner of
Social Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 28).
To date, no
objections were filed to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to file such
The standard of review by the district court when examining a Report and
Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636. This Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or the specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. In order to preserve the right
to appeal the magistrate judge’s recommendation, a party must file objections to
the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service of the Report
and Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
155 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508-09
(6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
After review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the
Court finds that her findings and conclusions are correct. The Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) formulation of
Erdmann’s Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”)—unskilled work that deals
primarily with objects instead of people—sufficiently accounts for Erdmann’s
moderate limitations in social functioning. The RFC is supported by substantial
evidence as set forth by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation,
which notes that the ALJ discussed the fact that Erdmann is currently employed in
a semi-skilled to skilled job as a part-time video camera operator, requiring him to
receive instructions and interact with others, as well as requiring greater mental
functioning than is required of unskilled work.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Erdmann’s arguments
regarding the ALJ’s formulation of Erdmann’s RFC fail; the ALJ gave the medical
evidence a full and fair review. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge
that the ALJ did not err by relying on the Grid because Erdmann’s nonexertional
limitations do not significantly erode the occupational base of work. The Court
further agrees that the ALJ’s assessment of Erdmann’s credibility is supported by
substantial evidence, as set forth by the Magistrate Judge, and should not be
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc # 32) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Kirk A. Erdmann’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc # 27) is DENIED for the reasons set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 28) is GRANTED for the
reasons set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Dated: March 22, 2017
s/Denise Page Hood
Chief, U.S. District Court
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on March 22, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?