Wagner v. Colvin

Filing 20

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
REGINA M. WAGNER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-11553
Hon. Denise Page Hood

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
and
DISMISSING ACTION
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’
Report and Recommendation. [Doc. No. 19, filed March 22, 2016] To date, no
Objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation and the time to file
such has passed.
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 conclusions for the proper reasons.

The

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that although Plaintiff had severe
impairments, Plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments
that met the listed impairments as required in step three of the five-step sequential
evaluation of the evidence. The Court also agrees that the Magistrate Judge that
Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform light work and that
Plaintiff was able to return to her past relevant work as either a housekeeper or
cashier. The Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the
ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence in reaching the conclusion
that Plaintiff is not disabled under the Act. The Magistrate Judge thoroughly
reviewed the ALJ’s findings and the record in reaching her conclusion. The Court
accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as this Court’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law that Plaintiff is not disabled under the Act.
For the reasons set forth above,
2

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Patricia T. Morris [Doc. No. 19, filed March 22, 2016] is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 17, filed August 5, 2015] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 18, filed August 17, 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: April 29, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on April 29, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3