Berry v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 26

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

STEVE J. BERRY,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-868
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Brenneman’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (docket # 21) and Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(docket # 25). 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 objection. 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
claim for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff contends that the Report and Recommendation fails
to consider Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ herself neglected to evaluate one particular medical
opinion, dated January 26, 2010, out of many provided by Dr. Eastman, Plaintiff’s treating
physician. Plaintiff is mistaken. The ALJ’s written decision details objective evidence the ALJ
found contrary to certain of Dr. Eastman’s medical opinions, including the very opinion Plaintiff
claims she overlooked. (A.R., docket # 9-2, at 24-25.) As the Report and Recommendation points
out, the ALJ’s finding that objective evidence does not support certain of Dr. Eastman’s medical
opinions is a good reason for assigning those opinions little weight. Plaintiff’s objection fails.
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:

February 6, 2015

/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2