Heyd v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 24

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 21 ; the Commissioner's decision is affirmed; signed by Judge Robert J. Jonker (Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JEREMIAH HEYD, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-628 v. HON. ROBERT J. JONKER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. __________________________________/ ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Carmody’s Report and Recommendation in this matter (docket # 21); Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (docket # 22; and Defendant’s Response (docket # 23). 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; Plaintiff’s objections; and Defendant’s Response. The Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (docket # 21) 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 his Objections, Plaintiff simply reiterates and expands arguments he made in his 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. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (docket # 21) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED Dated: August 5, 2014 /s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?