UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DONALD HENDERSON, 

 

Plaintiff, 

 Civil Case No. 14-12675 

v. Honorable Linda V. Parker 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

_____________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

MARCH 31, 2015 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 11]; (2) 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF 

No. 9]; AND (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 10]

On July 9, 2014, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit challenging Defendant’s final 

decision denying his application for Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits 

under the Social Security Act. On the same date, the matter was referred to 

Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing 

and determination of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on all dispositive 

matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 2.) The parties 

subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 9, 10.) 

4:14-cv-12675-LVP-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 05/04/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 672
2

On March 31, 2015, Magistrate Judge Morris issued a R&R in which she 

recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion, grant Defendant’s motion, and 

affirm Defendant’s decision finding Plaintiff not disabled under the Social Security 

Act. (ECF No. 11.) In her analysis of Plaintiff’s claim in the R&R, Magistrate 

Judge Morris first finds that “any potential arguments Plaintiff may have regarding 

the credibility assessment, medical opinion analysis, and RFC [residual functional 

capacity] assessment have been waived because he only has cited the case law and 

regulations and has provided the Court with no indication of how the law applies to 

the facts of his client’s case.” (Id. at 23.) Magistrate Judge Morris notes that 

“[t]his is not the first time [she] has had to puzzle through Plaintiff’s counsel’s 

patchwork of social security law with no indication of how the law applies.” (Id. at 

23 n.4.) She indicates that this has become the hallmark of Plaintiff’s counsel’s 

summary judgment motions and such a problem in this District that one judge 

recently sanctioned Plaintiff’s counsel $2,500. (Id., citing Servantes v. Comm’r of 

Soc. Sec’y, No. 14-10250, 2015 WL 870255, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 27, 2015).) 

Magistrate Judge Morris finds that the limited record evidence Plaintiff cites to in 

support of his claims “misrepresents the record by focusing solely on Plaintiff’s 

testimony at the administrative [hearing] and ignoring the function reports where 

Plaintiff clearly stated that he did engage in activities of daily living.” (Id. at 23.) 

Plaintiff does not point to any medical sources whose opinions were improperly 

4:14-cv-12675-LVP-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 05/04/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 673
3

weighed, indicate what impairments should have been included in the RFC, or 

identify where evidence existed to support those impairments in the medical 

record. (Id.) 

Despite these comments, Magistrate Judge Morris goes on to review the 

record evidence and finds substantial evidence supporting the Administrative Law 

Judge’s credibility assessment, RFC assessment, and medical opinion analysis in 

this case. (Id. at 24.) In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Morris specifically outlines 

some of the evidence that supports the ALJ’s findings. (Id. at 24-26.) Thus 

Magistrate Judge Morris recommends that the Court affirm Defendant’s decision. 

(Id. at 26.) Magistrate Judge Morris concludes by advising the parties that they 

may object to and seek review of the R&R within fourteen days of service upon 

them. (Id at 26-27.) She further specifically advises the parties that “[f]ailure to 

file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal.” (Id. at 

26.) Plaintiff filed objections on April 14, 2015. (ECF No. 12.) 

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) 

4:14-cv-12675-LVP-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 05/04/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 674
4

(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). 

Plaintiff raises two “objections” to the R&R. First, he “object’s [sic] to the 

Magistrate’s [sic] assertion that [he] has failed to provide ‘developed 

argumentation’ and has thus had his arguments ‘deemed waived.’ ” (ECF No. 12 

at 1.) Plaintiff contends that he “directly cites supporting relevant case law from 

the [Sixth] Circuit Court of Appeals in assessing the claim[]” and “clearly sets 

forth the legal argument that the ALJ’s adopted RFC and decision in this case were 

not based upon the substantial evidence . . ..” (Id.) Plaintiff’s objection is without 

merit. 

“It is well-established that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, 

unaccompanied by some effort at developed argument, are deemed waived.” 

Dillery v. City of Sandusky, 398 F.3d 562, 569 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted). A plaintiff does not develop his or her arguments by 

simply citing case law relevant to social security determinations without explaining 

how that law applies to the plaintiff’s claims. Moreover, a plaintiff cannot simply 

4:14-cv-12675-LVP-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 05/04/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 675
5

claim that the ALJ erred “while leaving it up to the Court to scour the record to 

support this claim.” Deguise v. Comm’r of Social Security, No. 12-10590, 2013 

WL 1189967, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Feb.19, 2013), adopted by 2013 WL 1187291 

(Mar. 22, 2013). In any event, Magistrate Judge Morris’ assessment of Plaintiff’s 

pleading has no bearing on her analysis, as she proceeded to independently review 

the record to assess the merit of Plaintiff’s claim and determine whether the ALJ 

properly evaluated the medical record and opinion evidence to access Plaintiff’s 

RFC. 

In his next objection, Plaintiff takes issue with the magistrate judge’s 

conclusion that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the 

record. Plaintiff argues that “[t]he great weight of the substantial evidence on 

record can only provide for a finding that the Claimant is disabled due to his severe 

depression and pain.” (ECF No. 12 at 2.) However, the only evidence Plaintiff has 

identified in support of this argument is his hearing testimony which the ALJ and 

magistrate judge correctly found was contradicted by Plaintiff’s previous function 

reports and the medical evidence. In other words, Plaintiff has not identified 

substantial evidence supporting his claim of disability and, in fact, substantial 

evidence supports a contrary finding. 

For these reasons, the Court finds no merit to Plaintiff’s objections to 

Magistrate Judge Morris’ March 31, 2015 R&R. The Court therefore adopts the 

4:14-cv-12675-LVP-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 05/04/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 676
6

R&R and is affirming Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff social security 

benefits. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 

9) is DENIED; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: May 4, 2015 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, May 4, 2015, by electronic and/or U.S. 

First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

4:14-cv-12675-LVP-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 05/04/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 677