Bell v. Social Security, Commissioner of
OPINION and ORDER Adopting 22 Report and Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment and to Grant Defendant's 21 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
CASE NO. 15-11104
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [#22] TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#17] AND TO GRANT DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#21]
This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (Doc # 22)
filed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen on Plaintiff Valerie Bell’s pro se Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc # 17), and Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 21). To date, no objections were
filed to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to file such has passed. The
Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, DENIES Bell’s
Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion for
The background facts of this matter are adequately set forth in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the Court adopts them here.
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 his findings and conclusions are correct. The Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) was correct in finding
that Plaintiff’s severe impairments did not meet or equal any impairment listed in 20
C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (Doc # 14-2, Pg ID 16-18). The Court also
agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ’s formulation of Bell’s Residual
Functional Capacity (“RFC”)—light work with limitations—sufficiently accounts
for Bell’s physical and psychological limitations. The RFC is sufficiently supported
by substantial evidence as set forth by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and
Recommendation, and is within the discretion accorded the administrative factfinder.
The Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the material submitted
subsequent to the ALJ’s decision does not provide grounds for remand.
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc # 22) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 21) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Bell’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc # 17) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Dated: September 15, 2017
s/Denise Page Hood
Chief, U.S. District Court
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on September 15, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Julie Owens Acting in the Absence of 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?