UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARCUS E. AMPY,

 Plaintiff,

V. Case No. 14-CV-13547

Honorable Denise Page Hood 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING ACTION

This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti’s

Report and Recommendation. [#28] Plaintiff Marcus E. Ampy filed this action on

September 11, 2014, asking this Court to review the Commissioner’s final decision

to deny his application for supplemental security income benefits and disability

insurance benefits. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The

Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant the Commissioner’s Motion for

Summary Judgment and deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Neither

party filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation.

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

determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in reaching

2:14-cv-13547-DPH-APP Doc # 29 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 766
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 it is 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).

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

Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. Finding no

error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the

Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Furthermore, as neither party has raised

an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the parties have

waived any further objections to the Report and Recommendation. Smith v. Detroit

Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (a party’s failure

to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal); Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

2

2:14-cv-13547-DPH-APP Doc # 29 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 767
For the reasons stated above,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 28, filed

January 14, 2016] is ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of

law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

[Docket No. 18, filed February 11, 2015] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [Docket No. 23, filed April 21, 2015] is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: March 22, 2016

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

record on March 22, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

3

2:14-cv-13547-DPH-APP Doc # 29 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 768