Soto v. SSA, Commissioner of

Filing 17

OPINION and ORDER (1) Adopting Magistrate Judge's 14 Report and Recommendation, (2) Denying Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) Granting Defendant's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JUSTIN PAUL SOTO,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 17-cv-10054
Honorable Linda V. Parker

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
MARCH 2, 2018 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 14] (2)
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF
No. 12]; AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [ECF No. 13]
On January 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit challenging a final decision
of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s application for social security benefits.
On January 9, 2017, this Court referred the lawsuit to Magistrate Judge Stephanie
Dawkins Davis 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). The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. (ECF Nos. 12 & 13.)

I.

Background
On March 2, 2018, Magistrate Judge Davis issued an R&R recommending

that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grant
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff objects to the R&R because
he believes Magistrate Judge Davis erred when she determined that the
Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) failure to consider Plaintiff’s diagnosis of
ADHD, depression and personality disorder was harmless error. (ECF No. 15 at
Pg ID 1072.)
At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Davis advised the parties
that they may object to and seek review of the R&R within fourteen days of service
upon them. Plaintiff filed an objection on March 16, 2018. (ECF No. 15.)
Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s objection on March 20, 2018. (ECF No. 16.)
II.

Standard of Review
When objections are filed to a magistrate judge’s R&R on a dispositive

matter, the Court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court, however, “is not required to articulate all of the
reasons it rejects a party’s objections.” Thomas v. Halter, 131 F. Supp. 2d 942,
944 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (citations omitted). A party’s failure to file objections to
certain conclusions of the report and recommendation waives any further right to
2

appeal on those issues. See Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829
F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987). Likewise, the failure to object to certain
conclusions in the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to
independently review those issues. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
III.

Applicable Law & Analysis
The Court has made a de novo determination of the portion of the R&R to

which Plaintiff objects and reaches the same conclusion as Magistrate Judge Davis.
Plaintiff’s sole objection is that Magistrate Judge Davis erred when she determined
that the ALJ’s failure to consider Plaintiff’s diagnosis of ADHD, depression and
personality disorder was harmless error. (ECF No. 15 at Pg ID 1072.) Plaintiff
contends that he detailed in his testimony how the conditions interfered with his
employment, including his inability to socially interact and suicidal thoughts. (Id.
at Pg ID 1073.) He also maintains that his depressive symptoms and personality
disorder caused him to have poor sleeping patterns and self-medicate with
marijuana and led to his history of self-inflicted injuries. (Id.) According to
Plaintiff, his conditions support a finding that his limitations are far more severe
than the ALJ’s RFC finding. (Id.)
Contrarily, Defendant argues that Magistrate Judge Davis found that the ALJ
determined that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not credible, and Plaintiff
did not challenge that finding. (ECF No. 16 at Pg ID 1078.) Further, Defendant
3

contends that even with Plaintiff’s reported symptoms, the objective evidence
showed Plaintiff was “alert, attentive, and cooperative with intact memory and
judgment and fair insight.” (Id.)
Magistrate Judge Davis found that there was no record of any functional
limitations relating to Plaintiff’s diagnosis of ADHD, depression and personality
disorder beyond those already assessed in the RFC based on Plaintiff’s bipolar
disorder. Ultimately, Magistrate Judge Davis found that even with the ALJ failing
to discuss Plaintiff’s ADHD, depression, or personality disorder, the error was
harmless. (ECF No. 14 at Pg ID 1052.) “[A] diagnosis establishes a medically
determinable impairment only where it is supported by objective medical
evidence.” Tolbert v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133019, at *12
(E.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 133010 ( E.D. Mich., Sept. 18, 2012) (citing Social Security Ruling 96-4p,
1996 SSR LEXIS 11, *3, 1996 WL 374187 at *1); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521
(“[A] physical or mental impairment must be established by objective medical
evidence from an acceptable medical source. We will not use your statement of
symptoms, a diagnosis, or a medical opinion to establish the existence of an
impairment(s).”)
The Court finds that Magistrate Judge Davis correctly concluded that there is
no substantial evidence of functional limitations resulting from Plaintiff’s
4

conditions of ADHD, depression, or personality disorder beyond those discussed in
the RFC finding and requiring a remand would be futile. Further, Plaintiff’s
subjective complaints regarding his limitations, absent objective medical evidence,
are unprevailing. The Court, therefore, adopts Magistrate Judge Davis’
recommendations.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
12) is DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the findings of the Commissioner are
AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 26, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, March 26, 2018, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

5