Wynne v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 26

ORDER accepting and adopting 23 Report and Recommendations; denying 16 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 21 Motion for Summary Judgment; and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision to deny Plaintiff supplemental social security income. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER. Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 9/1/17. (aws, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
MARIAN WYNNE,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-CV-260
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee

ORDER

Before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. (Docs. 16, 21.) The Court
referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule
72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for a report and recommendation. On July 14, 2017,
Magistrate Judge Lee entered a report and recommendation, recommending that the Court: (1)
deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; (2) grant the Commissioner’s motion for
summary judgment; and (3) affirm the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff supplemental
social security income. (See generally Doc. 23.) Plaintiff timely filed objections to Magistrate
Judge Lee’s report and recommendation (Doc. 24), and Defendant responded (Doc. 25). For the
reasons stated herein, the Court will: (1) ACCEPT and ADOPT the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation (Doc. 23); (2) DENY Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 16);
(3) GRANT Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 21); and (4) AFFIRM the
Commissioner’s decision to deny Plaintiff supplemental social security income.

I.

BACKGROUND
In her report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Lee detailed the procedural and

factual background underlying this matter. The parties have not objected to Magistrate Judge
Lee’s recitation of the facts, and the Court finds that the facts set forth in the report and
recommendation are accurate. Accordingly, for the purposes of reviewing Plaintiff’s objections
to Magistrate Judge Lee’s report and recommendation, the Court ADOPTS BY REFERENCE
the facts set forth in the report and recommendation. (Doc. 23.)
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the report and

recommendation to which objections are made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In doing so,
the Court’s standard of review is essentially the same as the magistrate judge’s—review is
limited to determining if the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) findings are supported by
substantial evidence and if proper legal standards were applied. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Brainard v.
Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 889 F.2d 679, 681 (6th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). “Substantial
evidence” is “more than a mere scintilla” and means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389,
401 (1971). If supported by substantial evidence, the Court must affirm the ALJ’s findings, even
if substantial evidence also supports the opposite conclusion. Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336
F.3d 469, 475 (6th Cir. 2003).
Although the Court is required to engage in a de novo review of specific objections, if the
objections merely restate the arguments asserted in Plaintiff’s earlier motion, which were
addressed by the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Court may deem those

2

objections waived. See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d 934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004). “A
general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously presented,” however, “is
not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge.” Id. “An
‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested
resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that
term is used in this context.” Id. The Sixth Circuit has also explained that:
A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate’s report has the same effects
as would a failure to object. The district court’s attention is not focused on any
specific issues for review, thereby making the initial reference to the magistrate
useless. The functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both the
magistrate and the district court perform identical tasks. This duplication of time
and effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to
the purposes of the Magistrates Act.
Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
III.

ANALYSIS
In this case, Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,

arguing that: (1) the ALJ failed to give appropriate weight to the opinions of her treating
physician; and (2) the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Based on these
arguments, Plaintiff contends the magistrate judge erred by failing to overrule the ALJ’s decision
denying her supplemental social security benefits. (See Doc. 24.)
In her motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff argued that the ALJ failed to give
appropriate weight to the opinions of her treating physician and that the ALJ’s decision was not
supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. 16-1, at 1–4.) Magistrate Judge Lee considered these
exact arguments and rejected them, finding that the ALJ provided good reasons for discounting
the treating physician’s opinions and that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial
evidence. (Doc. 23, at 6–14.) The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Lee’s well-reasoned

3

report and recommendation affirming the ALJ’s decision, which, contrary to Plaintiff’s
arguments, is consistent with the standards set forth in Gayhart v. Commissioner of Social
Security, 710 F.3d 365, 375–76 (6th Cir. 2012) (discussing the standards for weighing medical
opinions).
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court hereby: (1) ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Doc. 23); (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment (Doc. 16); (3) GRANTS the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment
(Doc. 21); and (4) AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision to deny Plaintiff supplemental social
security income.
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER.

/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4