McClellon v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 23

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation for 18 Report and Recommendation, 15 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Tammy McClellon, 17 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Commissioner of Social Security Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TAMMY MCCLELLON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-10732

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
___________________________________/

HON. AVERN COHN

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I.
This is a social security appeal. Plaintiff, Tammy McClellon, has appealed the
ALJ ruling that she is not entitled to social security benefits. (Doc. 1). The case was
referred to a magistrate judge. (Doc. 3). Both parties submitted motions for summary
judgment. (Doc. 15, 17). After reviewing the motions, pleadings, and ALJ decision, the
magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“MJRR”), which states that
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied, and Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment should be granted. (Doc. 18). Plaintiff has filed objections to the
MJRR and Defendant has filed a response. (Doc. 19, 22).
II.
Plaintiff filed two objections to the MJRR. (Doc. 19). First, Plaintiff says that the
MJRR “never really addresses Plaintiff’s main argument in this case.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff’s
“main argument” is “that SSR 03-02p was [not] cited or used in any evaluation or finding
in the ALJ’s decision.” (Doc. 17, p. 3). She says that the MJRR “breaks down this
argument in sections, 1a-1e, while not addressing why the ruling was never mentioned

in the decision.” Id. The Court disagrees. The MJRR addressed Plaintiff’s arguments
and provided proper explanation.1 Plaintiff’s objection merely restates her argument.
“An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than disagree with a magistrate judge’s
determination, ‘without explaining the source of the error,’ is not considered a valid
objection.” Fox v. Colvin, 2016 WL 837164 at *1 (E.D.Mich. March 4, 2016) (quoting
Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)); see
also VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F.Supp.2d 934, 937 (E.D.Mich. 2004) (stating that an
objection that “merely restates the arguments previously presented is not sufficient to
alert the court to alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge.”).
Plaintiffs second objection states that the MJRR “essentially ignores Plaintiff’s
argument” and the “little weight” given to her treating physician, Dr. Parker, was error.
Again, Plaintiff’s objection merely restates her argument. Moreover, this Court does not
review ALJ credibility determinations, which means that the ALJ’s decision to give “little
weight” to the evidence offered by her treating physician is not reversible error. Walters
v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 1997) (“[d]iscounting
credibility to a certain degree is appropriate where an ALJ finds contradictions among
the medical reports, claimant’s testimony, and other evidence.”).

1

The MJRR recognized that SSR 03-02p deals with RSDS and CRPS and that the ALJ
addressed RSDS and CRPS at Step 2. The MJRR concludes that “even if the ALJ did
not expressly cite SSR 03-02p within the Step 3 discussion, it was brought to the ALJ’s
attention during the May 2, 2017 administrative hearing, and the Court has no reason to
believe that the ALJ improperly addressed Plaintiff’s RSDS/CRPS at Step 3.” (Doc. 18,
p. 10).

2

III.
The Court finds that the MJRR reasonings and conclusions are proper.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the MJRR (Doc. 18). Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 17) is GRANTED, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 15) is
DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

s/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: 5/8/2019
Detroit, Michigan

3