Henry v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 16 ; the Commissioner's decision is affirmed; to the extend Plaintiff seeks a sentence-six remand, the request is denied; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

PHYLLIS HENRY, on behalf of
D.H., a minor,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:16-cv-1452
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Kent’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (ECF No. 16); Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 17); and Defendant’s Response (ECF No.
18). 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 451 (3d ed.
2014). Specifically, the Rules provide that:
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept,
reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return
the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). 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 to

objections. The Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation factually sound
and legally correct.
The Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the decision of the ALJ denying benefits.
The Magistrate Judge also recommends denying Plaintiff’s implicit request for a sentence-six
remand. In her Objections, Plaintiff primarily reiterates and expands arguments made in her
initial brief. She does not address the analysis of the Magistrate Judge in any meaningful way.
Nothing in her submission adds to or otherwise changes the fundamental analysis.

The

Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision and
that a sentence-six remand is not warranted.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 16) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. To
the extent Plaintiff seeks a sentence-six remand, the request is DENIED.

Dated:

February 20, 2018

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

2