Hallmark v. Social Security

Filing 16

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation for 13 ; Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 10 ; and Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 12 . Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHELLE R. HALLMARK,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-13665
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
___________________________/
ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS [ECF No. 14];
(2) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 13];
(3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 10]; and
(4) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. 12]
On August 15, 2018, Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment and GRANT Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff
objects to the R&R.
When a party properly objects to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the Court reviews such portions de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
However, only specific objections that pinpoint a source of error in the report are entitled
to de novo review. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). General
objections – or those that do nothing more than disagree with a magistrate judge’s
determination, without explaining the source of the error – have “the same effect[] as
would a failure to object.” Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505,
509 (6th Cir. 1991). That is, such objections are not valid, and the Court may treat them

as if they were waived. See Bellmore-Byrne v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 15-11950,
2016 WL 5219541, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 22, 2016) (citing id.). Similarly invalid are
objections “that merely reiterate[] arguments previously presented, [without] identify[ing]
alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge.” See id.
Plaintiff fails to properly object to the R&R. Rather than asserting specific
objections, Plaintiff reiterates arguments made previously, without identifying any error
made by Magistrate Judge Majzoub.
In her first of two objections, Plaintiff reiterates, word-for-word, an argument she
made in her motion for summary judgment; she fails to identify or explain any error the
Magistrate Judge made. This objection lacks merit and is waived. See id.; Wallace v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 15-11839, 2016 WL 4409062, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 19,
2016) (“Because Plaintiff raises no specific objections to Magistrate Judge Patti's R&R
but merely repeats her brief word for word, Plaintiff has waived any matter therein that
might otherwise be cast as an objection.”) (citation and footnote omitted).
Plaintiff’s second objection is similarly deficient. In it, Plaintiff summarily states
that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) and Magistrate Judge misconstrued medical
evidence and testimony, and that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the ALJ’s
decision was supported by substantial evidence. Beyond these conclusory statements
disagreeing with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions, Plaintiff merely reiterates – again,
word-for-word – the fact portion of her motion for summary judgment summarizing her
impairments, medical history, and limitations. Plaintiff fails to explain what evidence the
Magistrate Judge misconstrued or how she misconstrued it, and she does not describe
why the Magistrate Judge erred in finding substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s

2

decision. Plaintiff’s second objection fails as a matter of law. See Bellmore-Byrne,
2016 WL 5219541, at *1; Wallace, 2016 WL 4409062, at *2 (“‘[B]are disagreement with
the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge, without any effort to identify any
specific errors in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis that, if corrected, might warrant a
different outcome, is tantamount to an outright failure to lodge objections to the R & R.’”)
(quoting Arroyo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 14-14358, 2016 WL 424939, at *3 (E.D.
Mich. Feb. 4, 2016)).
Plaintiff’s objections are deficient. Nevertheless, after a de novo review of the
R&R, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s findings and conclusions. She
accurately laid out the facts; she considered the record as a whole; and her conclusions
are well reasoned and well supported.
The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge
Majzoub’s R&R.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; Plaintiffs Motion for
Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Judgment will enter in favor of Defendant.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: December 27, 2018

3