Thiel v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 20 ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, mil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KAREN THIEL,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1216
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 # 20); Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(docket # 21); and the Commissioner’s Response to Objections (docket # 22). 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 the Defendant’s response to
objections. The Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (docket # 20)
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. 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 # 20) 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