O'Brien v. Social Security, Commissioner of
Filing
25
OPINION and ORDER (1) Adopting Magistrate Judge's 24 Report and Recommendation; (2) Denying Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Granting Defendant's 22 Motion for Summary Judgment; and (4) Affirming Defendant's Decision. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEBRA BOONE O’BRIEN,
Plaintiff,
Civil Case No. 18-10396
Honorable Linda V. Parker
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
AUGUST 16, 2019 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 24]; (2)
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF
NO. 20]; (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 22]; AND (4) AFFIRMING DEFENDANT’S
DECISION
On February 1, 2018, Plaintiff 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 lawsuit comes after Plaintiff’s May 17, 2012 application for social
security benefits, (R. at 116-24), Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Anthony R.
Smereka’s October 24, 2013 opinion finding that Plaintiff was not disabled under
the Social Security Act, (R. at 16-29), and the Appeals Council’s subsequent denial
of Plaintiff’s request for review, (R. 1-6). In response, Plaintiff appealed to this
Court, Case No. 15-12200, and on November 17, 2016, Judge Thomas L.
Ludington adopted Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Strafford’s report and
recommendation (“R&R”), remanding Plaintiff’s action for the ALJ “to clarify
which evidence in the record is considered relevant and to explain the basis for that
conclusion, to scrutinize the consistency between the claimant’s testimony and the
objective medical findings, and to consider the correct age and age group of the
claimant.” (R. at 736 (citing R. at 825-40; R. at 841-44).) The Appeals Council
then remanded this matter to ALJ Smereka for further proceedings consistent with
the order of the Court. (R. at 847.)
On August 24, 2017, ALJ Smereka held a new hearing, at which Plaintiff
and a vocational expert, Michele D. Robb, testified. (R. at 763-806.) On October
2, 2017, ALJ Smereka issued an opinion, which again determined that Plaintiff was
not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. (R. at 733-62.) The
Appeals Council subsequently denied Plaintiff’s request for review, and thus ALJ
Smereka’s October 2, 2017 decision became the Commissioner’s final decision.
Plaintiff timely filed the instant lawsuit on February 1, 2018. (ECF No. 1.)
On February 5, 2018, this Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Anthony
P. Patti 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 R&R on all
dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). (ECF No. 4.)
2
The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF
Nos. 20, 22.)
On August 16, 2019, Magistrate Judge Patti issued an R&R recommending
that this Court grant the Commissioner’s motion and deny Plaintiff’s motion.
(ECF No. 24.) In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Patti rejects Plaintiff’s argument that
the ALJ’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ failed
to properly evaluate opinion evidence. At the conclusion, Magistrate Judge Patti
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 1396-97.) He further specifically advises
the parties that “[f]ailure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any
further right to appeal.” (Id. at Pg. ID 1396 (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir.
1991)).) Neither party filed objections to the R&R.
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions
reached by Magistrate Judge Patti. The Court therefore adopts Magistrate Judge
Patti’s August 16, 2019 R&R.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
20) is DENIED;
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s decision finding Plaintiff
not disabled under the Social Security Act is AFFIRMED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 18, 2019
4
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?