United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Christine A. Crumrine-Husseini, Plaintiff,
Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Deavers Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
objects to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") dated February 17, 2017,
ECF No. 19. In the R&R, ECF No. 18, Magistrate
Judge Deavers recommended that the Court overrule Plaintiffs
Statement of Specific Errors, in which Plaintiff challenged
the Commissioner of Social Security's (the
"Commissioner") decision to deny Plaintiffs
application for social security disability insurance benefits
and supplemental security income.
reasons that follow, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs
objections, AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the R&R, and DISMISSES
applied for benefits on October 17, 2012, alleging that she
became disabled on July 15, 2007. Plaintiff specifically
alleged that she experienced a head injury at that time and
has since suffered from amnesia.
Plaintiffs initial application was denied, an administrative
law judge ("ALT) held a hearing on Plaintiffs
application. The ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled
within the meaning of the Social Security Act (the
"Act"). That decision became final on November 5,
2015, when the Appeals Council denied review.
subsequently filed suit for judicial review of the
Commissioner's decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). Magistrate Judge Deavers analyzed Plaintiffs
Statement of Specific Errors and recommended that the Court
overrule the same. Plaintiff now objects to Magistrate Judge
Deavers' conclusions in the R&R.
Standard of Review
party objects to an R&R within the allotted time, the
Court "shall make 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); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). Upon review, the Court "may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. §
well settled that, when objecting to an R&R, a party must
make "specific written objections" to the
magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations.
Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A general statement that the
magistrate judge erred does not aid judicial efficiency, the
purpose "for which the use of magistrates [was]
authorized." Howard v. Sec'y of Health &
Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir.
1991); see also Holl v. Potter, No. C-1-09- 618,
2011 WL 4337038, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 15, 2011),
affd, 506 F.App'x 438 (2012) ("Objections
that merely restate arguments raised in the memoranda
considered by the Magistrate Judge are not proper, and the
Court may consider such repetitive arguments waived.").
Court must analyze Plaintiff's objections in light of the
standard of review in social security cases, which Magistrate
Judge Deavers correctly set forth in the R&R:
When reviewing a case under the Social Security Act, the
Court "must affirm the Commissioner's decision if it
'is supported by substantial evidence and was made
pursuant to proper legal standards.'" Rabbers v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec, 582 F.3d 647, 651 (6th Cir.
2009) (quoting Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec, 486
F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)); see also 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) ("[t]he findings of the Commissioner of
Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial
evidence, shall be conclusive . . . ."). Under this
standard, "substantial evidence is defined as 'more
than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance;
it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'"
Rogers, 486 F.3d at 241 (quoting Cutlip v.
Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs.,25 F.3d 284, 286
(6th Cir. 1994)). Although the substantial evidence standard
is deferential, it is not trivial. The Court must
"'take into account whatever in the record fairly
detracts from [the] weight'" of the
Commissioner's decision. TNS, Inc. v. NLRB, 296
F.3d 384, 395 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Universal Camera
Corp. v. NLRB,340 U.S. 474, 487 (1951)). Nevertheless,
"if substantial evidence supports the ALJ's
decision, this Court defers to that finding 'even if
there is substantial evidence in the record that would have
supported an opposite conclusion.'" Blakley v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec,581 F.3d 399, 406 (quoting
Key v. Callahan,109 F.3d 270, 273 (6th Cir. 1997)).
Finally, even If the ALJ's decision meets the ...