Vance v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 15 ; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
REGINA RENEE VANCE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:17-cv-723
v.
HON. JANET T. NEFF
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to deny her claim for
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 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 objection to the Report and Recommendation.
Defendant filed a response to the objection. 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 objection and issues this Opinion
and Order.
The Magistrate Judge set forth the proper standards and thoroughly considered Plaintiff’s
arguments in light of the record and governing law. In her objection to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff argues that this Court should reject “the Magistrate Judge’s
finding that the ALJ did not err in weighing the opinions of Drs. Hudson and Findley” (ECF No.

16 at PageID.1031). However, as Defendant points out in response (ECF No. 17 at PageID.1035),
Plaintiff’s “objection” to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation merely reiterates
the arguments she presented to the Magistrate Judge. Her objection demonstrates her disagreement
with the ALJ’s decision, but fails to identify any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s
review. 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). Accordingly, the Court will deny the objection, 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 Objection (ECF No. 16) is DENIED, the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 15) 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: August 30, 2018

2