Unger v. Social Security
Filing
20
OPINION AND ORDER (1) Rejecting Plaintiff's 17 Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation and (2) Adopting the Magistrate's 16 Report and Recommendation, Granting Defendant's 14 Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (BSau)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SUSAN ANN UNGER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 18-cv-11200
Honorable Linda V. Parker
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) REJECTING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO
THE MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO.
17) AND (2) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 16) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 14) AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 12)
Plaintiff Susan Unger (“Plaintiff”) initiated this lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”)
under Title II of the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) This matter was referred to
Magistrate Judge Morris pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B) and (C). (ECF
No. 3.)
1
Both parties filed summary judgment motions. (ECF No. 12, 14.) Magistrate
Judge Morris entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (ECF No. 16.)
Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the R&R, and Defendant filed a timely Reply.
(ECF No. 17, 19.)
Standard of Review
When objections are filed to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation 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 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).
Analysis
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Morris’s
R&R and rejects them.
2
First, Plaintiff objects to the R&R claiming that it “includes an ahistorical
summary of the evidence in the record that is unreliable, inaccurate, incomplete
and misleading.” (Objs., ECF No. 17 at 13–14, Pg. ID 980–981.) However,
Plaintiff’s objection fails to identify any factual errors. Thus, this Court is satisfied
with the R&R and the Magistrate Judge’s summary of the relevant medical and
non-medical evidence. (See R&R, ECF No. 16 at 4–15, Pg. ID 931–942
(summarizing the administrative record).)
Second, Plaintiff objects to the R&R claiming that the “ALJ committed legal
error in the determination of the claimant’s residual capacity by not including
[certain] limitations . . . and that the ALJ failed to properly recognize how
plaintiff’s . . . symptoms prevent her from maintaining a regular work schedule.”
(Objs., ECF No. 17 at 15–20, Pg. ID 982–987.) The ALJ’s decision addressed this
subject, making it clear that she fully considered the medical evidence. (See R&R,
ECF No. 16 at 22, Pg. ID 949.) Thus, this Court is satisfied that both the ALJ and
Magistrate Judge properly considered all of Plaintiff’s medical evidence, including
her enumerated symptoms, in determining her residual functional capacity. (See id.
at 19–32, Pg. ID 946–959.)
Third, Plaintiff objects to the R&R claiming that the “ALJ failed to properly
apply SSR 96-9p.” (Objs., ECF No. 17 at 20–26, Pg. ID 987–993.) As Magistrate
Judge Morris stated, however, the ALJ properly addressed SSR 96-9p, explaining
3
the need for expert testimony and properly recognizing that testimony as valid
evidence. (See R&R, ECF No. 16 at 33, Pg. ID 960.) Thus, this Court is satisfied
with both the ALJ’s and Magistrate Judge’s application of SSR 96-9p. (See id. at
32–38, Pg. ID 959–965.)
Finally, Plaintiff objects to the R&R claiming that, even if the use of the
vocational expert’s testimony in the application of SSR 96-9p was not error, the
“ALJ still failed to identify jobs which exist in significant numbers that the
claimant can perform without accommodation.” (Objs., ECF No. 17 at 26–27, Pg.
ID 993–994.) This objection grows from Plaintiff’s challenge to the vocational
expert’s use of the word “accommodation” when identifying available jobs.
However, as Magistrate Judge Morris articulated, the expert’s testimony properly
identified available jobs. (See R&R, ECF No. 16 at 37–38, Pg. ID 964–965.)
Thus, this Court is satisfied with both the ALJ’s and Magistrate Judge’s
interpretation and application of the vocational expert’s testimony. (See id. at 34–
38, Pg. ID 961–965.)
The Court, therefore, is rejecting Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge
Morris’s R&R and adopting the R&R, which grants Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment and denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Accordingly,
4
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 17) are
REJECTED and the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Morris’s April 12, 2019
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner of Social
Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 12) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 27, 2019
5
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?