Daniels v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

ORDER Accepting Report and Recommendation 19 and Dismissing Action. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RODNEY JAY DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No. 16-12479
Honorable Denise Page Hood

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING ACTION
This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s
Report and Recommendation. [#19] Plaintiff filed this action on May 26, 2016,
asking this Court to review the Commissioner’s final decision to deny his application
for disability insurance benefits. The parties filed cross motions for summary
judgment.

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant the

Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, deny Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, and dismiss Plaintiff’s cause of action. Neither party filed any
objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to
determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in reaching

his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The credibility
findings of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) must not be discarded lightly and
should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court’s review of an ALJ’s
decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve conflicts in the
evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at 397. The decision
of the Commissioner must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even
if the record might support a contrary decision or if the district court arrives at a
different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d 106, 108 (6th Cir. 1984);
Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).
The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the
Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. Finding no
error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the
Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Furthermore, as neither party has raised
an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the parties have
waived any further objections to the Report and Recommendation. Smith v. Detroit
Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (a party’s failure
to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal); Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
2

For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 19, filed
July 14, 2017] is ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Docket No. 14, filed October 31, 2016] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Docket No. 16, filed January 18, 2017] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: August 31, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on August 31, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3