Harris v. Social Security et al

Filing 51

ORDER Overruling 49 Objections, Adopting 48 Report and Recommendation, Denying 41 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

VICKY LYNN HARRIS,
Case No. 2:18-cv-11042

Plaintiff,

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

/

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS [49],
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [48],
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES [41]
Plaintiff moved for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. ECF
41. The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman. ECF 42.
The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") that suggested
the Court deny the motion. ECF 48. Plaintiff timely objected to the Report. ECF 49.
After examining the record and considering Plaintiff's objections de novo, the Court
finds that the arguments and objections lack merit. Accordingly, the Court will adopt
the Report's findings and deny Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees.
BACKGROUND
The Report properly details the events prompting Plaintiff's motion for
attorney fees. ECF 48, PgID 1264–67. The Court will adopt that portion of the Report.

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) governs the review of a magistrate
judge's report. A district court's standard of review depends on whether a party files
objections. The Court need not undertake any review of portions of a Report to which
no party has objected. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153 (1985). De novo review is
required, however, if the parties "serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In conducting a de
novo review, "[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
DISCUSSION
The first two objections hinge on the same analysis. Plaintiff claimed that the
magistrate judge erred in her Report because the Social Security Administration
("SSA") was not substantially justified in several steps of the litigation. ECF 49, PgID
1280–83. The objections are rehashed from the arguments before the magistrate
judge. See Hofer v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-12526, 2018 WL 4568805, at *1 (E.D.
Mich. Sept. 24, 2018); compare ECF 44, PgID 1234–35, 1238–41 with ECF 49, PgID
1281–83. Besides rehashing arguments, the objections failed to identify a specific flaw
in the Report. See Noto v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 13-12277, 2015 WL 630785, at *2
(E.D. Mich. Feb. 12, 2015) ("Overly general objections do not satisfy an objecting
party's obligation to find the particular findings that are claimed to be in error and
the discrete issues that the party wishes to raise.") (cleaned up). If Plaintiff objected

that the Report glossed over some of her arguments, the objection still fails. The
Report need not address every issue raised by Plaintiff; it need only "review[] and
consider[] each major, relevant, and well-articulated contention."  Ivy v. Sec'y of
Health & Hum. Servs., 976 F.2d 288, 289 (6th Cir. 1992). And the Report considered
the forfeiture issue at length. ECF 48, PgID 1270–73. What is more, the SSA did not
misrepresent the law. Rather, the SSA chose one side of a Circuit split that the
Supreme Court ultimately reversed. Id. at 1272–73 (citing Ramsey v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., 973 F.3d 537, 547 (6th Cir. 2020)). Because of the Circuit split and because the
SSA did not misrepresent the law—it merely chose the losing argument—the Court
will overrule the objection. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 566 n.2 (1988) ("[A]
position can be justified even though it is not correct.").
Next, Plaintiff objected that the Report failed to address whether the SSA
falsely argued that its regulations created a forfeiture issue exhaustion rule. ECF 49,
PgID 1283–84. But the argument is misleading. As the Report detailed, "[t]he
Commissioner's arguments in this case were purely legal in nature, and at no time
did he falsify the facts before either this Court or the Sixth Circuit." ECF 48, PgID
1276. The objection is therefore denied.
Last, Plaintiff objected that the Report failed to address that the SSA offered
a "special circumstances defense" and not a "substantial justification defense." ECF
49, PgID 1284–86. But the objection lacks merit because the Report noted that
Plaintiff mischaracterized the SSA's defense. ECF 48, PgID 1269 n.2; see ECF 43,
PgID 1219–30. At any rate, the Report found the SSA had a valid substantial

justification defense and thus "the question of 'special circumstances' would arise only
if the Court found that the government's position was not substantially justified."
ECF 48, PgID 1269 n.2 (emphasis omitted). The magistrate judge therefore
sufficiently addressed and properly rejected the rehashed argument in the Report.
See Bentley v. Colvin, No. 16-11314, 2017 WL 3768941, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 31,
2017). As a result, the Court will overrule the fourth objection.
CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's motion, the Report, and Plaintiff's
objections. The Court finds Plaintiff's objections unconvincing and agrees with the
Report's recommendation to deny the motion for attorney fees.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections [49] are
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation [48] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees [41] is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
s/Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge
Dated: November 3, 2021

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on November 3, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/David P. Parker
Case Manager