Hutchings v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TONYA HUTCHINGS
o.b.o. T.K.H.,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:16-CV-1459
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 (ECF No. 13) and Plaintiff’s Objection to it (ECF No. 14). 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 . . . as 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 Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the Commissioner’s decision on the basis that
the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. The Court has reviewed de novo the
claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the Report and Recommendation itself; and
Plaintiff’s Objection to it. After its review, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Carmody’s
Report and Recommendation is factually sound and legally correct and accordingly adopts its
conclusion.
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION
Plaintiff raises two objections, both of which lack merit. First, Plaintiff argues the
Magistrate Judge was too deferential to the Commissioner in the standard of review applied to the
case. Plaintiff’s Objections are overruled. The Magistrate Judge applied well worn Sixth Circuit
law in stating: “[t]he scope of judicial review in a social security case is limited to determining
whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards in making her decision and whether
there exists in the record substantial evidence supporting that decision.” (ECF No. 13, PageID.838839) (citing Brainard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679, 681 (6th Cir. 1989)). The
Magistrate Judge then proceeded to apply this standard by determining the Commissioner’s decision
was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly there is no error on this point.
Second, Plaintiff Objects to the Magistrate’s conclusion that substantial evidence supported
the ALJ’s step three determination in this child disability case. This Objection will also be
overruled. Plaintiff largely reiterates and expands arguments made in the initial brief. The Report
and Recommendation already carefully, thoroughly, and accurately addresses these arguments.
Nothing in Plaintiff’s Objection changes the fundamental analysis. The Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial
evidence for the very reasons the Report and Recommendation delineates.
2

CONCLUSION
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 13) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
A separate Judgment shall issue.

Dated:

February 27, 2018

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

3