Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
15
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 ; denying objections 13 ; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ERIKA E. MILLER,
Plaintiff,
Case No: 1:14-cv-714
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued
a Report and Recommendation (R & R) (Dkt 12), recommending that this Court affirm the
Commissioner’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under
Title II of the Social Security Act. The matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to
the R & R (Dkt 13). Defendant has filed a Response (Dkt 14). In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those
portions of the R & R to which objections have been made. The Court denies the objections and
issues this Opinion and Order.
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions that the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ): (1) properly weighed the medical evidence, and (2) properly evaluated Plaintiff’s credibility.
With regard to the first objection, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ selectively referenced the treatment
notes to discount the opinions of treating pain management specialist Dr. Mankoff and treating
physician Dr. Hazle (Objs. at Page ID# 458). She contends that the treating doctors provided
extensive clinical and diagnostic abnormalities to support their opinions, and that the Magistrate
Judge, and the ALJ, “failed to appreciate the record as a whole that did not contain substantial
evidence contradicting the opinions from the treating doctors …” (id. at Page ID# 459).
This objection essentially reasserts the same arguments Plaintiff raised in her brief before
the Magistrate Judge, i.e., that the ALJ failed to follow the treating physician rule (Dkt 10 at Page
ID# 414). As Defendant observes in its response (Dkt 14 at Page ID# 465), such duplication defeats
the purpose the Federal Magistrate’s Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, which is to “relieve courts of unnecessary
work.” See Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). An
“objection” that merely “restates the arguments previously presented is not sufficient to alert the
court to alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge.” VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d
934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004); see also Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995).
Likewise, Plaintiff’s second objection reiterates her argument in her initial brief that the ALJ
failed to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s credibility (Dkt 10 at Page ID# 419) in concluding that
Plaintiff was not credible based on her purported noncompliance with physical therapy, and failing
to apply the required legal analysis for denying benefits based on noncompliance. However, the
Magistrate Judge properly concluded that the ALJ’s decision to discount Plaintiff’s credibility was
supported by substantial evidence, including that Plaintiff’s reported activities were not consistent
with her allegations of “extreme functional limitation” (R & R at Page ID# 454). Contrary to
Plaintiff’s contentions, nothing indicates that this determination was based on an incorrect
assessment of Plaintiff’s statements or her activities of daily living.
The Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered Plaintiff’s initial arguments in light of the
record and the governing law. Plaintiff’s objections demonstrate no factual or legal error in the
2
Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Plaintiff sets forth no argument to warrant rejecting either the
Magistrate Judge’s determination that the ALJ’s decision adheres to the proper legal standards and
is supported by substantial evidence, or her ultimate conclusion recommending that the
Commissioner’s decision be affirmed (R&R, Dkt 12 at Page ID# 456).
For the reasons stated in the R & R, the Commissioner’s decision is properly affirmed.
Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the
Opinion of this Court and enter a Judgment consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R. CIV.
P. 58.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Objections (Dkt 13) are DENIED, and the
Report and Recommendation (Dkt 12) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is
AFFIRMED.
Dated: August 25, 2015
/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge
3
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?