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)

Download PDF
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    

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?