Page v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 4:2017cv13716 - Document 29 (E.D. Mich. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER (1) Rejecting Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation and (2) Adopting the Magistrate's 25 Report and Recommendation Granting 13 Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff's 8 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

Download PDF

Page v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JENNIFER PAGE, Plaintiff, Case No. 17-cv-13716 Honorable Linda V. Parker Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER (1) REJECTING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 26) AND (2) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 25) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 13) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 8) Plaintiff Jennifer Page (“Plaintiff”) initiated this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Whalen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B) and (C). (ECF No. 2.) Both parties filed summary judgment motions. (ECF No. 8, 13.) Magistrate Judge Whalen entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the R&R and a Notice of 1 Dockets.Justia.com Supplemental Authority, and Defendant filed a timely Reply. (ECF No. 26, 27, 28.) Standard of Review When objections are filed to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on a dispositive matter, the Court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court, however, “is not required to articulate all of the reasons it rejects a party’s objections.” Thomas v. Halter, 131 F. Supp. 2d 942, 944 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (citations omitted). A party’s failure to file objections to certain conclusions of the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal on those issues. See Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987). Likewise, the failure to object to certain conclusions in the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review those issues. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Analysis The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Whalen’s R&R and rejects them. First, Plaintiff objects to the R&R claiming that it “misses the point of Plaintiff’s argument” that the ALJ failed to satisfy its duty to articulate a rationale 2 with specific references to the record. This Court is satisfied with the R&R and the ALJ’s rationale and references to the record. (See R&R, ECF No. 25, PageID 95556 (articulating the ALJ’s rationale with references to the record)). Second, Plaintiff objects to the R&R claiming that the decision to uphold the administrative findings violates SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 93-94 (1993) because the ALJ did not properly articulate the rationale and basis of its findings. (See R&R, ECF No. 25 at 15–17, PageID 955–57.) This Court disagrees and finds that there has been no violation of Chenery. (See R&R, ECF No. 25 at 16, PageID 956.)1 Finally, Plaintiff seeks to have the Court reconsider the denial of her previous motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (See ECF No. 24.) The Court rejects Plaintiff’s request as untimely pursuant to L.R. 72(a) and unresponsive to the R&R pursuant to L.R. 72-1(d). The Court, therefore, is rejecting Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Whalen’s R&R and adopting the R&R, which grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, 1 The option would not have changed the number of available jobs, and the ALJ considered other evidence in the record to reach its conclusion. 3 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 26) are REJECTED and the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Whalen’s January 15, 2019 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Linda V. Parker LINDA V. PARKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: March 11, 2019 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this date, March 11, 2019, by electronic and/or U.S. First Class mail. s/R. Loury Case Manager 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.