Palmer v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 ; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JENNIFER L. PALMER,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:17-cv-577
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to deny her claim for disability
insurance benefits. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and
Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court affirm the decision of the Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) rendered on behalf of the Commissioner. The matter is presently before the
Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation. Defendant filed a response to
the objections. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), Plaintiff is
entitled to de novo consideration of the portion of the Report and Recommendation to which she
objects. The Court denies the objections and issues this Opinion and Order.
A party filing objections to a report and recommendation is required to “specifically
identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objections are
made and the basis for such objections.” W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Here, as Defendant points
out in response (ECF No. 16 at PageID.739), Plaintiff’s objections merely re-raise the arguments
she previously raised before the Magistrate Judge in her initial and reply briefs (ECF Nos. 11 &

13). Plaintiff challenges “[t]he ALJ’s failure to give proper weight to Dr. Potema’s opinions” and
“[t]he ALJ’s failure to address the factors in 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)” (ECF No. 15 at PageID.730,
736).
The Magistrate Judge set forth the proper standards and thoroughly considered both of
Plaintiff’s arguments in light of the record and governing law. The “purpose [of filing objections]
is not served if the district court is required to conduct a complete, de novo review of all of the
pleadings that were considered by the magistrate judge.” Freeman v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 972 F.2d 347, at *2 (6th Cir. 1992). Rather, “[t]he functions of the district court are
effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court perform identical tasks.”
Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff’s
objections reiterate her disagreement with the ALJ’s decision, but fail to identify any factual or
legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court will
deny the objections, 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 (ECF No. 15) are DENIED, the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 14) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court, and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
is AFFIRMED.

/s/ Janet T. Neff
JANET T. NEFF
United States District Judge

Dated: September 11, 2018

2