Bassett v. Social Security
ORDER Adopting 26 Report and Recommendation for Granting 21 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Commissioner of Social Security, Denying 16 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Tamika Latoya Bassett. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Tamika Latoya Bassett,
Case No. 16-13076
Commissioner of Social Security,
Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge
ADOPTING 8/11/17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Tamika Latoya Bassett filed this action, challenging a final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for disability insurance benefits under
the Social Security Act. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford for
determination of all non-dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Report and
Recommendation pursuant to § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions
for summary judgment.
On August 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Stafford issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) (Docket Entry No. 26) wherein she recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and affirm the
Commissioner’s decision. The R&R notified the parties that they may file objections to the
R&R and advised that “[e]ach objection must be labeled as ‘Objection #1,’ ‘Objection #2,’ etc.
and must specify precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it
pertains.” (Id. at 17).
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.
Here, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R on August 24, 2017. Plaintiff did not,
however, number her objections as instructed. This Court reads Plaintiff’s objections as
asserting a single objection, to the magistrate judge’s conclusions relating to vascular surgeon
Brian Beeman, M.D. In her summary judgment motion, Plaintiff argued that the ALJ improperly
failed to give controlling weight to the medical opinions and restrictions of Dr. Beeman, who
Plaintiff argued was a treating physician. Magistrate Judge Stafford carefully considered, but
rejected, Plaintiff’s arguments, concluding that: 1) Dr. Beeman was not a “treating physician”
because he treated Plaintiff just once; 2) Dr. Beeman’s opinion was not a “medical opinion” to
which the ALJ was required to defer; and 3) in any event, his instructions did not conflict with
the ALJ’s assessed RFC. (R&R at 7 & 8). This Court concurs with the magistrate judge’s
analysis and conclusions regarding Dr. Beeman.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s August 11, 2017 R&R. IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that: 1) Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED; 2) Defendant’s motion is
GRANTED; 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 1, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
September 1, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
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?