Gier v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 34

ORDER Denying 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting 22 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; and Adopting 28 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL GIER,
Plaintiff,

Case no: 15-12792
District Judge Victoria A. Roberts
Magistrate Judge David R. Grand

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/

ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. # 28);
(2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. # 22); AND,
(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. # 18)
Plaintiff Michael Gier (“Gier”) appeals the denial of Social Security disability
benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”). The parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court referred those motions to Magistrate
Judge David Grand.
Magistrate Judge Grand issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion and deny Gier’s. Magistrate
Judge Grand found that: (1) substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision that Gier
had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work; (2) the ALJ properly
evaluated Gier’s mental condition; (3) substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision
at step-three that Gier’s mental impairments caused mild functional limitations between
August 19, 2007 and December 31, 2008; (4) the ALJ appropriately gave little weight to
1

Dr. Kaniowski’s medical opinions; (5) Dr. Kaniowski’s answers to Gier’s physical RFC
questionnaire were inconsistent with the evidence in the record; (6) substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Gier’s anxiety disorder and adjustment disorder
caused mild limitations; (7) the ALJ properly assessed Gier’s credibility; and, (8) the
record does not show that Gier is medically required to have a cane to stand.
Gier filed objections to all of Judge Grand’s conclusions in the R&R.
After proper objections are made, the Court reviews de novo a Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation on a dispositive motion. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Id. A district court need not conduct
de novo review where the objections are "[f]rivolous, conclusive or general." Mira v.
Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir.1986) (citation omitted). 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. Tuggle v. Seabold, 806 F.2d 87, 93 (6th Cir. 1986); DickeyWilliams v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 975 F. Supp. 2d 792, 798 (E.D. Mich. 2013).
After carefully reviewing the cross motions for summary judgment, the R&R,
Gier’s objections, the Commissioner’s response, and the remainder of the record, the
Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Grand’s conclusions.
Magistrate Judge Grand accurately laid out the facts and relevant portions of the
administrative record; he engaged in a thorough analysis of the issues and provided
reasoned explanations for his conclusions. In reaching his conclusions, Magistrate
Judge Grand considered the entire record and applied the appropriate standard for
review of an ALJ’s decision.
2

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Grand’s Report and
Recommendation: Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; Plaintiff’s
Motion to for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security is AFFIRMED.

IT IS ORDERED.  

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: March 23, 2017
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 23, 2017.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk

3