Parizeau v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 17

Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 16 , is hereby dopted. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 2/28/2018. (JLG)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL PARIZEAU,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:16CV2945

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff Michael Parizeau’s application
for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) after a hearing in the above-captioned case. That
decision became the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security when the
Appeals Council denied the request to review the ALJ’s decision. The claimant sought judicial
review of the Commissioner’s decision, and the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge
George J. Limbert for preparation of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636
and Local Rule 72.2(b)(1). On February 12, 2018, the magistrate judge submitted a Report (ECF
No. 16) recommending that the Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision as supported by
substantial evidence and made pursuant to proper legal standards. Specifically, the magistrate
judge found Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ erred in assigning little weight to the opinions of
Dr. Bittence, Plaintiff’s treating physician, when determining Plaintiff’s residual functional
capacity (“RFC”), is without merit. ECF No. 16 at PageID #: 534. In addition the magistrate

(5:16CV2945)
judge found that the ALJ provided “good reasons” for assigning less than controlling weight to
the opinions of Dr. Bittence regarding Plaintiff’s physical and mental limitations. Id. at PageID#:
535—37. Next, the magistrate judge found the ALJ properly addressed the factors set forth in
20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, and therefore, did not violate the treating physician rule or any applicable
regulation. Id. at PageID#: 537. Finally, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s argument that the
ALJ erred in failing to include any specific work-related limitations in the RFC analysis arising
from Plaintiff’s right hand impairment, is also without merit. Id. at PageID #: 537—38.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be
filed within 14 days after service. Objections to the magistrate judge’s Report were, therefore,
due on February 26, 2018. Neither party has filed objections, evidencing satisfaction with the
magistrate judge’s recommendations. Any further review by this Court would be a duplicative
and inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir.
1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d
505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge is hereby adopted.
The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Judgment will be entered in
favor of Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 28, 2018
Date

/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

2