Acosta v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 29

ORDER Adopting 23 Report and Recommendation for Denying 18 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Julie Marie Acosta, and Granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security, Commissioner of Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (EKar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Julie Marie Acosta,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-12414

Commissioner of Social Security,

Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge

Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING 9/6/2018 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial review of Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s unfavorable decision denying her claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income benefits. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis
for determination of all non-dispositive motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and the issuance
of a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) pursuant to § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Thereafter, the
parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
On September 6, 2018, Judge Davis issued her R&R, 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. (ECF No. 23).
Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a
matter by a Magistrate Judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy of the R&R. “The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de
novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate

1

judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made.” Id.
On September 24, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to file her
objections. On October 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R within the Court’s extension
period. (D.E. 20). Defendant filed a response to those objections on October 19, 2018. (D.E. 21).
To properly object to the R&R, however, the “Plaintiff must do more than merely restate the
arguments set forth in [his or] her summary judgment motion.” Senneff v. Colvin, 2017 WL 710651
at *2 (E.D. Mich. 2017). A district court is not obligated to address objections that are recitations
of the same arguments that were addressed by the magistrate judge because “such objections
undermine the purpose of the Federal Magistrate’s Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, which serves to reduce
duplicative work and conserve judicial resources.” Owens v. Commission of Soc. Sec., 2013 WL
1304470 at * 3 (W.D. Mich. 2013) (citing Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d
505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)).
Plaintiff raises four objections. The first three are waived because they are near word-forword recitations of Plaintiff’s arguments in her motion for summary judgment, which were fully
addressed by Judge Davis. Compare ECF No. 18, PageID 493-505 with ECF No. 26, PageID 579588. Thus, these arguments are not properly before the Court.
Plaintiff’s fourth objection is sufficiently distinct to require review by the Court. Plaintiff
objects to Judge Davis’s conclusion that her argument concerning the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”)’s credibility determination was cursory and underdeveloped. Plaintiff argues that, in her
motion for summary judgment, she presented a “legal theory, a summary of the ALJ’s findings on
the issue, an analysis of why her testimony was consistent with the record, and a citation to Sixth
Circuit case law.”

2

This is the entirety of Plaintiff’s credibility argument in her motion for summary judgment:
Finally, the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff was not credible. The ALJ made adverse
credibility findings at AR 28 and AR 30-31. He found Plaintiff’s “statements
concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of [her] symptoms are not
entirely credibility for the reasons explained in this decision.” (AR 31). A closer
review of the record reveals Plaintiff could perform minimal and basic household
chores. But on the whole, her condition, symptoms and medication regime severely
limited her ability to function and rendered her unable to work. The ALJ’s adverse
credibility findings were essentially boilerplate, and based on an RFC and medical
findings that were erroneous for the reasons set forth in this brief. See Cox v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 615 Fed. Appx. 254, 259-260 (6th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (reversing
denial of benefits in part because ALJ used summary boilerplate to reject the
claimant’s credibility).
Judge Davis aptly described this argument as perfunctory. Plaintiff sets forth only
conclusory statements and a reference to “reasons set forth in this brief.” She does not describe her
testimony. Nor does she explain why the ALJ’s credibility determination was boilerplate.1 Thus,
the Court agrees with Judge Davis’s conclusion as to this argument.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the June 1, 2018 R&R and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2019

s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge

1

Such an explanation would have surely been helpful given that the ALJ appears to have
fully explained his credibility determination in the pages immediately proceeding the sentence
cited by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 13-2, PageID 77-78) (comparing Plaintiff’s statements with other
record evidence and finding contradictions).
3

I hereby certify that on January 22, 2019, the foregoing document was served on counsel of record
via electronic means and upon Julie Marie Acosta via First Class mail at the address below:
Julie Marie Acosta
304 East Main Street
Stockbridge, MI 49285

s/E. Karhoff
Case Manager Generalist

4