Bondarenok v. Saul

Filing 18

OPINION and ORDER (1) Adopting Magistrate Judge's 17 Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying Plaintiff's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Granting Defendant's 16 Motion for Summary Judgment; and (4) Affirming Defendant's Decision. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

Case 2:19-cv-12480-LVP-RSW ECF No. 18 filed 09/08/20

PageID.792

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT BONDARENOK,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 19-12480
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/

OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S JULY
13, 2020 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 17]; (2)
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF
NO. 15]; (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 16]; AND (4) AFFIRMING DEFENDANT’S
DECISION
On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff Robert Bondarenok filed this lawsuit
challenging the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) final
decision denying Plaintiff’s application for social security benefits under the Social
Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) This Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge R.
Steven Whalen for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and determination
of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report
and recommendation (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). (ECF No. 3.) The parties subsequently filed crossmotions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 15, 16.)

Case 2:19-cv-12480-LVP-RSW ECF No. 18 filed 09/08/20

PageID.793

Page 2 of 3

On July 13, 2020, Magistrate Judge Whalen issued an R&R recommending
that this Court grant the Commissioner’s motion and deny Plaintiff’s motion.
(ECF No. 17.) In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Whalen rejects Plaintiff’s argument
that the modifiers in the ALJ’s hypothetical question—which helped form the basis
of the ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination—did not sufficiently
account for Plaintiff’s moderate limitation in concentration, persistence, and pace.
(Id. at Pg. ID 786-88.) Magistrate Judge Whalen also rejects Plaintiff’s assertion
that the ALJ erred in finding that Plaintiff did not experience more than mild
limitation in interacting with others. (Id. at Pg. ID 789.) At the conclusion,
Magistrate Judge Whalen advises the parties that they may object to and seek
review of the R&R within 14 days of service upon them. (Id. at Pg. ID 790.) He
further specifically advises the parties that “[f]ailure to file specific objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal.” (Id. (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th
Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981))) Neither party
filed objections to the R&R and the time do so has expired.
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions
reached by Magistrate Judge Whalen. The Court therefore adopts the R&R.
Accordingly,

2

Case 2:19-cv-12480-LVP-RSW ECF No. 18 filed 09/08/20

PageID.794

Page 3 of 3

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
15) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s decision finding Plaintiff
not disabled under the Social Security Act is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 8, 2020

3