UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALYCIA ROBERTS on behalf 

Of JW, a Minor,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 14-13194

Honorable Denise Page Hood 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s 

Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff Alycia Robert’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment [Docket No. 19, filed February 26, 2015] and Defendant 

Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 20, filed March 25, 

2015]. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed an objection to the Report and 

Recommendation. For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety [Docket No. 22, 

filed July 23, 2015]. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED

and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. 

2:14-cv-13194-DPH-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 09/14/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 803
2

Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to 

determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in 

reaching his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984)). The 

credibility findings of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) must not be discarded 

lightly and should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health 

and Human Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court’s review 

of an ALJ’s decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve 

conflicts in the evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at 

397. The decision of the Commissioner must be upheld if supported by substantial 

evidence, even if the record might support a contrary decision or if the district 

court arrives at a different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d 106, 

108 (6th Cir. 1984); Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).

Remand is appropriate under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) since the 

ALJ failed to develop the factual record on which the decision denying disability 

benefits rests. The Supreme Court recognizes only two kinds of remands 

involving social security cases–those pursuant to sentence four and those pursuant 

to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 99 

(1991); Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 626 (1990). The Supreme Court 

concluded that Congress’s explicit delineation in § 405(g) regarding circumstances 

2:14-cv-13194-DPH-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 09/14/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 804
3

under which remands are authorized clearly showed that Congress intended to limit 

the district court’s authority to enter remand orders in these two types of cases. 

Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 100. Sentence four allows a district court to remand in 

conjunction with a judgment affirming, modifying or reversing the 

Commissioner’s decision. Id. at 99-100. Sentence four remands are appropriate in 

situations where the decision maker incorrectly applied the regulations in denying 

disability benefits. Faucher v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 17 F. 3d 171, 

174 (6th Cir. 1994). In such situations the district court must reverse the 

Commissioner’s decision and remand the matter for further proceedings in order to 

correct the error. Id. A judgment must be entered immediately with a sentence 

four remand and the district court does not retain jurisdiction during the 

administrative proceedings on remand. Melkonyan, 501 U.S. 101-02. Failure to 

remand under sentence four and retention of jurisdiction is error. Shalala v. 

Schaeffer, 509 U.S. 292, 299 (1993). A sentence four remand is a judgment for the 

plaintiff. Id. at 302 (citations omitted).

“[O]nly those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the 

district court will be preserved for appellate review; making some objections but 

failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections a party may have.” Smith 

v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). “An 

2:14-cv-13194-DPH-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 09/14/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 805
4

‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s 

suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is” 

insufficient. Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). A 

party’s failure to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal, see 

Smith, 829 F.2d at 1373, and relieves the Court from its duty to review the matter 

independently. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the 

Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusion for the proper reasons. The Court 

agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ erred by relying on J.W.’s treating 

physician, Dr. Cecilia Astorga-Switzer’s, incomplete evaluation in reaching his 

decision after representing to Plaintiff that he would obtain an evaluation from Dr. 

Astorga-Switzer before making a decision. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the

ALJ’s findings and the record thoroughly in reaching her conclusion. The Court 

also agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by 

the record, given that the medical records describe symptoms much more severe 

than those that the ALJ identifies. The Magistrate Judge set forth specific 

examples of how the ALJ’s findings were not supported by the record. 

2:14-cv-13194-DPH-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 09/14/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 806
5

The Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ should 

obtain updated records from J.W.’s treating providers and from his school, and 

allow Roberts additional time to obtain counsel if she so wishes.

The Court notes that the Magistrate Judge also notified the parties of their 

right to “seek review of this Report and Recommendation” and reminded them of 

the timeline in which to do so. As previously stated, neither Plaintiff nor 

Defendant have filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s July 23, 2015, 

Report and Recommendation. The Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate 

Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford [Docket No. 22, filed July 23, 2015] is ACCEPTED

and ADOPTED as this Court’s findings and conclusions of law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment [Docket No. 19, filed February 26, 2015] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment [Docket No. 20, filed March 25, 2015] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is 

REVERSED.

2:14-cv-13194-DPH-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 09/14/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 807
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED for further 

proceedings under Sentence Four.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: September 14, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of 

record on September 14, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

2:14-cv-13194-DPH-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 09/14/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 808