Wade v. Social Security

Filing 23

ORDER denying 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 18 Report and Recommendation. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

BERNADETTE WADE,
Case No. 16-10042
Plaintiff,
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
ARTHUR J. TARNOW

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

Defendant.
/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [18]; GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [17]; DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [15]; OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION
[21]
On January 30, 2017 the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation
(R&R) [18], recommending that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [17]
be granted and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [15] be denied.
Defendant filed objections on February 14, 2017 [21] and Plaintiff responded to
the objections on February 21, 2017 [22]. For the reasons stated below, the Court
ADOPTS the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation [18]. Plaintiff’s

Page 1 of 4

objections [21] are overruled. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is
GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [15] is DENIED.
This Court reviews objections to an R&R on a dispositive motion de novo.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). Judicial review of a decision by an Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”) is limited to determining whether the factual findings are
supported by substantial evidence and whether the ALJ employed the proper legal
standards. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). The ALJ’s factual
findings “are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.” Maziarz v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 837 F.2d 240, 243 (6th Cir. 1987). “Substantial evidence
is defined as more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007).
The substantial evidence standard “does not permit a selective reading of the
record,” as the reviewing court’s assessment of the evidence supporting the ALJ’s
findings “must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its
weight.” Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 388 (6th Cir. 1984).
Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation [21] merely refer
back to the substance of her Motion for Summary Judgment [21]. These arguments
were already briefed and considered by the Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Page 2 of 4

Judgment [17] and the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation [18]. Objections
are meant to identify specific errors in the Magistrate’s report and not restate
previous arguments already considered. Davis v. Caruso, No. 07-10115, 2008 WL
540818, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 25, 2008) (denying an objection to an R&R where
Plaintiff “merely rehashe[d] his arguments.”). Additionally, “the Court is not
obligated to address an objection made in this form, because the objection failed to
identify the specific errors the MJ's recommendations.” Hogston v. Colvin, No. 1414458, 2016 WL 878329, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 8, 2016); see also Howard v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2). As Plaintiff has not filed specific written objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court need not and will not analyze his
objections and the Objections [21] are OVERRULED.
The Court having reviewed the record, the Report and Recommendation [18]
Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby ADOPTED and entered as the findings
and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation [18] is
ADOPTED and entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

Page 3 of 4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections [21] are
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [17] is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [15]
is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2017

s/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4