Walker v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 26

ORDER Adopting 23 Report and Recommendation for Denying 14 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Anthony Walker, Jr, and Granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security, Commissioner of. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Anthony Walker Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-10669

Commissioner of Social Security,

Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge

Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING 7/27/17 AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Anthony Walker Jr. brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
challenging Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s determination that he is not entitled to
supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits. The parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment (Docket Entries No. 14 & 17), which were referred to Magistrate Judge David R.
Grand for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)91)(B).
On February 21, 2017, the magistrate judge issued an R&R wherein he recommended
that Defendant’s motion be denied, Plaintiff’s motion be granted to the extent that it sought
remand and denied to the extent that it sought an award of benefits, and that the case be
remanded for further proceedings. Defendant filed a timely objection to the R&R on February
28, 2017 (Docket Entry No. 20). On June 26, 2017, the Court entered an order returning this
matter to Magistrate Judge Grand to address the issue raised by Defendant in her objection to the
R&R.
On July 27, 2017, the magistrate judge issued an amended R&R (Docket Entry No. 23),
wherein he recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s motion for Summary Judgment, deny
1

Plaintiff’s motion for Summary Judgment, and affirm the Commissioner’s decision.
Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a
matter by a magistrate judge must filed objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after
being served with a copy of the R&R. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the amended R&R on
August 7, 2017, and Defendant filed a response to the objections on August 10, 2017.
To properly object to the R&R, Plaintiff must do more than simply restate the arguments
set forth in his summary judgment motion. Senneff v. Colvin, 2017 WL 710651 at * 2 (E.D.
Mich. Feb. 23, 2017). Absent compelling reasons, the Magistrate Judge Act, 28 U.S.C. § 631 et
seq., “does not allow parties to raise at the district court stage new arguments or issues that were
not presented to the magistrate.” Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 n 1 (6th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff’s first two objections challenge the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)
assignment of “great weight” to the opinions of medical expert Sai Nimmagadda, MD. Plaintiff
argues that Dr. Nimmagadda is a board certified pediatrician and not qualified to provide mental
health assessments. Plaintiff contends that these assessments must be made by a psychiatrist or
psychologist.1
Because Plaintiff did not present this argument to the magistrate, it could be deemed
waived. Murr, 200 F.3d at 902 n 1. Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s argument also fails on the merits.
20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1015 and 416.1016 pertain to which consultants must make initial State agency
disability determinations. The regulations’ requirements were satisfied here; a State agency

1

The Court notes that the provisions Plaintiff cites in support of this argument, 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1615(d) and 404.1616(f), pertain to disability determinations and are inapplicable to
Plaintiff’s claim for SSI benefits. However, 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1015 and 416.1016 contain
identical provisions related to SSI claims. The Court will proceed as if Plaintiff had relied upon
these provisions.
2

psychological consultant, Jerry Csokasy, Ph.D., initially evaluated Plaintiff’s claim (Docket
Entry No. 11, Tr. 91-93). The regulations did not require that the testifying medical expert in
this case, Dr. Nimmagadda, be a psychologist or psychiatrist and Plaintiff cites no other
authority for that proposition.
Finally, Plaintiff states that he was diagnosed by his physician with severe major
depressive disorder, apparently renewing his argument that the ALJ erred in ignoring his
diagnosis of a major depressive order and in failing to find the condition to be a severe
impairment. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff has shown no
error in the ALJ’s determination where Plaintiff did not allege any functional limitations
resulting from this impairment. (See R&R at 11).
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections and ADOPTS the magistrate
judge’s July 27, 2017 R&R. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 1) Defendant’s motion is
GRANTED; 2) Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED; and 3) the ALJ’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: September 12, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
September 12, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager

3