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)

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