Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 26

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 23 ; the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED ; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PAMELA R. MILLER,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:12-CV-150
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Scoville’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (docket # 23) and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (docket # 24). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where, as here, a party
has objected to portions of a Report and Recommendation, “[t]he district judge . . . has a duty to
reject the magistrate judge’s recommendation unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she finds it
justified.” 12 WRIGHT , MILLER, & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3070.2, at 381
(2d ed. 1997). Specifically, the Rules provide that:
The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo
determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any
portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written
objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision,
receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.

FED R. CIV . P. 72(b). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the
evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981).
The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge;
the Report and Recommendation itself; and Plaintiff’s objections. The Court finds the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (docket # 23) is factually sound and legally correct.
The Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the decision of the ALJ to deny Plaintiff’s
request for disability insurance benefits. In her Objections, Plaintiff primarily reiterates and
expands arguments she made in her initial brief. The Report and Recommendation already
carefully, thoroughly, and accurately addresses each of those arguments. Nothing in Plaintiff’s
Objections adds to or otherwise changes the analysis. To the extent Plaintiff claims the Magistrate
Judge failed to consider the factors delineated in Gayheart v. Commissioner of Social Security, 710
F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013), Plaintiff is mistaken. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ
provided good reasons for discounting the weight given Dr. Ruth’s opinion and specific support for
his decision to do so. See Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376. The Magistrate Judge properly concluded
that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (docket # 23) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

/s/Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 21, 2014

2