Rumsey v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
26
OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 23 ; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, clb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL JAMES RUMSEY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:17-cv-749
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 his 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 he
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. 25 at PageID.667), Plaintiff’s objections merely re-raise the arguments
he previously raised before the Magistrate Judge in his initial brief (ECF No.13). In his objections,
Plaintiff asserts that “[t]he ALJ failed to give controlling weight to a treating neurologist’s
opinion”; “[t]he ALJ improperly used backward analysis in the opinion weighing process”; “[t]he
ALJ erred in not incorporating limitations from all the medically determinable impairments, both
severe and non-severe, into the Residual functional Capacity and erred in not considering the
combined impact thereof”; and “[t]he ALJ improperly overemphasized Plaintiff’s daily activities”
(ECF No. 24 at PageID.660, 661, 662, 664). To the extent Plaintiff includes cursory references to
the Report and Recommendation, the references do not constitute developed arguments in support
of a result different from the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
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). The Magistrate Judge in this case set forth the proper standards and thoroughly considered
Plaintiff’s arguments in light of the record and governing law. Plaintiff’s objections reiterate his
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:
2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 24) are DENIED, the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 23) 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
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?