Arnold v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 19 ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAURA J. ARNOLD,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-298
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (docket # 19) and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (docket # 20). 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 # 19) factually sound and legally correct.
Plaintiff’s Objections principally reiterate and expand arguments made in her initial briefing.
The Magistrate Judge has already carefully considered and thoroughly addressed these arguments.
Even accepting as true Plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ mistakenly found certain of treating
physician Dr. Praamsma’s opinions internally inconsistent, the ALJ provided other reasons for
discounting Dr. Praamsma’s opinions, including the results of three MRIs and a lack of objective
medical evidence supporting the opinions. None of Plaintiff’s objections changes the fundamental
analysis the Report and Recommendation details. The Magistrate Judge correctly found that
substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to deny benefits.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (docket # 19) 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
Chief United States District Judge
Dated: August 4, 2015

2