Ritchie v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
21
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 18 ; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RANDALL SCOTT RITCHIE,
Plaintiff,
Case No: 1:11-cv-855
v
HON. JANET T. NEFF
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration to deny his claim for disability insurance benefits (DIB). The matter was referred
to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court
affirm the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) rendered on behalf of the Commissioner.
The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Defendant filed a response to the objection. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of the
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. The Court denies the
objections and enters this Opinion and Order.
At the outset, the Court observes that Plaintiff’s “objections” do not specifically reference
any portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which he purportedly
objects. Local Rule 72.3(b) provides that a party filing objections to a report and recommendation
“shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to
which objections are made and the basis for such objections.” W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Here,
Plaintiff only generally objects to the Magistrate Judge’s ultimate conclusions that (1) the ALJ
properly assessed Plaintiff’s claim that his back impairment meets the requirements of Listing 1.04B
(disorders of the spine), and (2) the ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff’s credibility. An “objection”
that merely “restates the arguments previously presented is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged
errors on the part of the magistrate judge.” VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d 934, 937 (E.D.
Mich. 2004). As Defendant appropriately observes in its response, duplicative consideration by the
district court would defeat the purpose and efficiency of consideration by the magistrate judge in
the first instance. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir.
1991).
In any event, this Court’s review of the record demonstrates no error in either of the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the ALJ had
properly assessed Plaintiff’s claim that his back impairment meets or equals the requirements of
Listing 1.04B (R&R, Dkt 18 at 5-8). Indeed, as the Magistrate Judge pointed out, “[e]ven in cases
where the claimant has had an impairment which came very close to meeting a listing, this court has
refused to disturb the Secretary’s finding on medical equivalence” (id. at 7-8, quoting Retka v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 1995 WL 697215, at *2 (6th Cir. 1994), citing Dorton v. Heckler, 789 F.2d
363, 366 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Price v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 281, 284 (6th Cir.1985) (per
curiam)).
Additionally, although Plaintiff disagrees with the ALJ’s assessment, the Magistrate Judge
also correctly concluded that the ALJ had properly assessed Plaintiff’s credibility. An ALJ’s
credibility determination may not be disturbed absent compelling reason. Smith v. Halter, 307 F.3d
2
377, 379 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Varley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Svcs., 820 F.2d 777, 780 (6th
Cir. 1987) (ALJ’s credibility determination “should not be discarded lightly”); Garner v. Heckler,
745 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir. 1984) (“This Court may not try the case de novo, ... nor decide questions
of credibility.”). Here, the Magistrate Judge determined that the ALJ had “articulated her reasons
for determining that plaintiff was not credible and cited extensive portions of the administrative
record to support her determination” (R&R, Dkt 18 at 16).
In sum, Plaintiff’s objections reveal no error by the Magistrate Judge requiring a disposition
other than the recommended affirmance. Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 19) are DENIED, the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt 18) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion
of the Court, and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED.
A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order.
Dated: August 27 , 2012
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
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?