Marudas v. Social Security

Filing 22

ORDER Adopting 19 Report and Recommendation for Granting 16 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Commissioner of Social Security and Denying 15 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Christine M. Marudas. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (JMcC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Christina M. Marudas,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-12703

Commissioner of Social Security,

Sean F. Cox
United States District Court Judge

Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING
6/1/18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial review of Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s unfavorable decision denying her claim for supplemental security income benefits and
children’s insurance benefits. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris 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 June 1, 2018, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (D.E.
19) 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.
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 June 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R. (D.E. 20). Defendant filed
a response to those objections on June 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’s first objection to the R&R is that the “Magistrate Judge inappropriately rejected
plaintiff’s criticisms of the ALJ’s reliance upon the opinions on nonexamining Dr. Balunas.” (D.E.
20, PageID 723). In her motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff argued that the ALJ erred in
relying on Dr. Balunas’s findings because these findings were “completely and undeniably contrary
to the evidence of record and cannot therefore represent substantial evidence supportive of the ALJ’s
conclusion.” (D.E. 15, PageID 655). In the R&R, the magistrate judge concluded that, although
Plaintiff was apparently referring to the “enormous swaths of the record she recounted earlier in the
brief,” she did not actually “pinpoint even one specific example of such a contradiction.” (D.E. 19,
PageID 709). In her objection, Plaintiff argues that the “Magistrate judge effectively inverted the
order of plaintiff’s arguments, detailing (not always accurately) the contention that Dr. Balunas’
opinions were not consistent with the record, but then looking for specific examples thereafter.”

2

Regardless of where Plaintiff presented evidence that she believed contradicted Dr. Baluna’s
findings, she never explained how this evidence contradicted his findings. The magistrate judge has
no duty to search through the brief to determine what evidence supports Plaintiff’s argument, or to
make her argument for her. See Operating Engineers Local 324 Health Care Plan v. G & W Const.
Co., 783 F.3d 1045, 1057 (6th Cir. 2015) (declining to address an argument when the party failed
to offer “developed argumentation” because it is not the court’s function to “craft an appellant’s
arguments.”)
After noting Plaintiff’s failure to provide a specific contradiction, the magistrate judge
conducted an exhaustive review of the record and concluded that “the record reflects that Dr.
Balunas recognized that Plaintiff suffered from severe impairments and accounted for them in his
analysis—a far cry from Plaintiff’s blanket assertion that Dr. Baluna’s findings were completely and
undeniably contrary to the evidence of the record.” (D.E. 19, PageID 712). To the extent that
Plaintiff is now reasserting the same argument that Dr. Balunas’s findings were directly
contradictory to the underlying record, the Court will not address it. Moreover, the Court agrees
with the magistrate’s analysis and conclusions as to this argument.
Plaintiff’s second objection is that the “Magistrate Judge also failed to adequately address
plaintiff’s challenge to the ALJ’s handling of the Dr. Rosenbaum’s opinions.” (D.E. 20, PageID
727). Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in concluding that Dr. Rosenbaum’s opinions
were inconsistent with Dr. Kroll’s opinions. (D.E. 20, PageID 729). The magistrate judge once
again reviewed the record and determined that Dr. Rosenbaum’s findings were “far from ‘[q]uite
obviously’ inconsistent with the conclusion that Plaintiff could perform simple, routine work, and
to the extent Plaintiff wishes the court to more heavily favor evidence I must decline.” To the extent

3

that Plaintiff is now reasserting the same argument that the findings of Dr. Rosenbaum and Dr. Kroll
are inconsistent, the Court will not address it. Moreover, the Court agrees with the magistrate’s
analysis and conclusions 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.
s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
United States District Judge
Dated: September 26, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
September 26, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Jennifer McCoy
Case Manager

4