Molden v. Social Security, Commissioner

Filing 18

ORDER Adopting 15 Report and Recommendation re 13 Motion for Summary Judgment, 11 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Vesz L. M.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

Case No. 24-cv-10309
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mag. Judge David R. Grand

________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [15], DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [11], AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [13]
On January 21, 2025, Magistrate Judge David R. Grand issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 15) recommending that
the Court deny Plaintiff Vesz L. M.’s motion for summary judgment (ECF
No. 11), grant Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 13) and affirm the Commissioner’s decision
to deny Plaintiff benefits under the Social Security Act. On February 3,
2025, Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the R&R under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule

72.1(d). (ECF No. 16.) Defendant responded to the objection. (ECF No.
17.)
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled,
and the R&R is adopted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment is denied, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
granted, and the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed.
I.

Background

The Court adopts by reference the background set forth in the R&R,
having reviewed it and finding it to be accurate and thorough. (See ECF
No. 13, PageID.491–495.)
II.

Legal Standard

A party may object to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation on dispositive motions, and a district judge must resolve
proper objections under a de novo standard of review. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B)–(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1)–(3). “For an objection to be
proper, Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d)(1) requires
parties

to

‘specify

the

part

of

the

order,

proposed

findings,

recommendations, or report to which [the party] objects’ and to ‘state the
basis for the objection.’” Pearce v. Chrysler Grp. LLC Pension Plan, 893

2

F.3d 339, 346 (6th Cir. 2018) (alteration in original). Objections that
restate arguments already presented to the magistrate judge are
improper, see Coleman-Bey v. Bouchard, 287 F. App’x 420, 422 (6th Cir.
2008) (citing Brumley v. Wingard, 269 F.3d 629, 647 (6th Cir. 2001)), as
are those that dispute the general correctness of the report and
recommendation, see Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995).
Moreover, objections must be clear so that the district court can
“discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Id. (citing
Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir.
1991)); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985) (stating that
objections must go to “factual and legal” issues “at the heart of the
parties’ dispute”). In sum, objections must be clear and specific enough
that the Court can squarely address them on the merits. See Pearce, 893
F.3d at 346.
In Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019), the Supreme Court
articulated the standard the district court must apply when conducting
its de novo review. The Court indicated that the phrase “substantial
evidence” is a “term of art.” Id. at 1154 (internal citation omitted). “Under
the substantial-evidence standard, a court looks to an existing

3

administrative record and asks whether it contains ‘sufficien[t] evidence’
to support the agency’s factual determinations.” Id. (alteration in
original) (internal citation omitted). “And whatever the meaning of
‘substantial’ in other contexts, the threshold for such evidentiary
sufficiency is not high. Substantial evidence . . . is ‘more than a mere
scintilla.’” Id. (internal citations omitted). Specifically, “[i]t means—and
means only—‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id. (internal citations omitted). “[I]f
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s [administrative law judge’s]
decision, this Court defers to that finding ‘even if there is substantial
evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite
conclusion.’” Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir.
2009) (quoting Key v. Callahan, 109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)).
III. Analysis
Plaintiff objects to the R&R on the grounds that “[t]he Magistrate
Judge erred in his assertion that the ALJ applied proper legal standards
in considering all of [Plaintiff’s] impairments, including non-severe
mental, in formulating the RFC [residual functional capacity].” (ECF No.
16, PageID.2103.) Plaintiff argues that because the ALJ found mental

4

impairments, she was required to provide an explanation as to why she
omitted related limitations from the RFC. (Id. (citing April S. v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., No. 22-11964, 2023 WL 9503397, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 12,
2023), report and recommendation rejected sub nom. Smith v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., 715 F. Supp. 3d 994 (E.D. Mich. 2024)).1
Plaintiff’s objection is denied as improper because it repeats
arguments that were before Magistrate Judge Grand (see ECF No. 11,
PageID.2048–2049 (“[T]he ALJ failed to properly consider [Plaintiff’s]
mental impairments. While the ALJ found them to be non-severe, she did
not accurately articulate in her RFC determination why no mental
limitations were not included.”); see also PageID.2043-2044), and because
the objection fails to identify a factual or legal error in the R&R. The R&R

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff cites an R&R for the proposition that “if

ultimately no mental limitations existed in the RFC despite finding mental
limitations at Step Two, the ALJ was required to provide a sufficient explanation as
to ‘why []he omitted from the RFC [the] limitations related to [plaintiff's] mild
mental impairment[.]’” April S., 2023 WL 9503397, at *7 (citing Rodriguez v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 20-CV-13372, 2022 WL 4359541, at *3–4 (E.D. Mich. Sept.
20, 2022)). However, the April S. Court declined to adopt that R&R and instead held
that “the ALJ was not required to specifically discuss each non-severe impairment
in the RFC assessment to demonstrate that the impairments were considered. . . .
Thus, even if the ALJ failed to adequately explain why and to what extent he
considered Plaintiff's mental impairments in arriving at his RFC determination, he
did not err.” Smith, 715 F. Supp. 3d at 999–1000 (collecting cases).

5

thoughtfully addresses Plaintiff’s arguments and properly rejects them.
“The Court is not obligated to reassess the identical arguments presented
before the Magistrate Judge with no identification of error in the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.” Pearson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No.
2:15-cv-14031, 2017 WL 1190947, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2017)
(internal citations omitted); see McClure v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2012517, 2022 WL 730631, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 10, 2022) (stating that
objections “that merely reiterate[ ] arguments previously presented,
[without] identify[ing] alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge”
are “invalid” (alterations in original) (internal citation omitted)); Melvin
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:18-cv-13405, 2020 WL 967479, at *2 (E.D.
Mich. Feb. 28, 2020) (overruling the plaintiff’s objection as improper
because the plaintiff was “merely rehashing his argument from his
motion for summary judgment,” which “[t]he magistrate judge
sufficiently addressed and properly rejected”); Pangburn v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., No. 16-13393, 2018 WL 992219, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 21, 2018)
(overruling improper objections that “simply reiterate the arguments
presented to the Magistrate Judge in the summary judgment briefing”
(citing Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004)).

6

Plaintiff also expresses general disagreement with the R&R’s
findings, which is improper for an objection. This court has stated that
[w]hen a party properly objects to portions of a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, the Court reviews such
portions de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). However, only
specific objections that pinpoint a source of error in the report
are entitled to de novo review. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636,
637 (6th Cir. 1986). General objections—or those that do
nothing more than disagree with a magistrate judge’s
determination, without explaining the source of the error—
have “the same effect[ ] as would a failure to object.” Howard
v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th
Cir. 1991). That is, such objections are not valid, and the
Court may treat them as if they were waived. See BellmoreByrne v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 15-11950, 2016 WL 5219541,
at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 22, 2016) (citing id.).
McClure, 2022 WL 730631, at *1. Because Plaintiff’s objection restates
arguments that were previously before Magistrate Judge Grand, fails to
identify an error in the R&R, and disagrees with the R&R in a general
fashion, the objection is invalid and is overruled.
Even upon a review of the merits of the objection, Plaintiff’s
objection is still overruled. In her brief, Plaintiff argues that “the ALJ did
not properly consider [Plaintiff’s] mental impairments when constructing
the RFC. The amount of probative mental health treatment omitted from
the discussion renders the decision unsupported. This error warrants
7

remand.” (ECF No. 16, PageID.2106.) This argument is unpersuasive. As
Judge Grand stated in his R&R, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s non-severe
mental

impairments:

“Plaintiff’s

non-severe

depression

was

appropriately considered by the ALJ. In fact, the ALJ’s thorough
discussion of this condition spans more than six full pages of her
decision.” (ECF No. 15, PageID.2087.) Plaintiff cites specific parts of the
record that she believes shows that the ALJ’s decision was unsupported
by substantial evidence in the record. But as Judge Grand noted, “there
is no requirement that the ALJ discuss every piece of evidence from the
administrative record. . . . In the end, Plaintiff is merely asking the Court
to reweigh the evidence, which is impermissible.” (Id., PageID.2093
(citing Kornecky v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 167 F. App’x 496, 508 (6th Cir.
2006).) Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection also fails on the merits.
In sum, Plaintiff’s objection is improper because it repeats
arguments that were before Magistrate Judge Grand, is a general
objection, and fails on the merits. Plaintiff does not show that the R&R
is mistaken. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.

8

IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is
DENIED (ECF No. 11), Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED (ECF No. 13), and the Commissioner’s decision is
AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 11, 2025
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 11, 2025.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager

9