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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?