Estrada v. Social Security et al
OPINION and ORDER Adopting 22 Report and Recommendation to Deny Plaintiff's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment and to Grant Defendant's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BEVERLY ANN ESTRADA,
CASE NO. 16-10524
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [#22] TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#14] AND TO GRANT DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#17]
This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (Doc # 22)
filed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis on Plaintiff Beverly Ann
Estrada’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 14), and Defendant Commissioner
of Social Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 17). 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 Estrada’s Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS the
Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
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 her findings and conclusions are correct. The Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff has not presented material evidence that would have
changed the outcome of the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision. The
Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ’s formulation of Estrada’s
Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”)—light work with limitations—sufficiently
accounts for Estrada’s physical 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 substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s credibility determination.
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis’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 # 17) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Estrada’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc # 14) 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
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?