UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Anita Colon-Lockhart,

Plaintiff, 

Case No: 14-14336

Hon. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.

Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Anita Colon-Lockhart (“Colon-Lockhart”) appeals the Commissioner of

Social Security’s denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits. The parties

filed cross-motions for summary judgment which the Court referred to Magistrate Judge

R. Steven Whalen. In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated December 29,

2015, Magistrate Judge Whalen recommended Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment be granted. Colon-Lockhart timely objected. The objections are fully briefed.

 The Court ADOPTS the R&R. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED; Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

1

2:14-cv-14336-VAR-RSW Doc # 29 Filed 03/25/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 528
II. Discussion

Colon-Lockhart appeals the Commissioner’s denial on her application for

Disability Insurance Benefits. 

The Court conducted a de novo review of the R&R and the record in light of

Colon-Lockhart’s objections. Where a Magistrate Judge’s R&R is objected to, the

district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which an

objection has been made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The district judge may accept, reject,

or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28

U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C). After completing a de novo review, there is no requirement that

the district court articulate all of the reasons it rejects a party's objections. Thomas v.

Halter, 131 F. Supp. 2d 942, 944 (E.D. Mich. 2001). 

Colon-Lockhart submitted several objections that are not numbered or otherwise

organized. Essentially, however, the objections are that the Magistrate Judge erred by:

(1) finding the ALJ decision was supported by substantial evidence because the

hypothetical question that formed the basis for the VE testimony assumed a greater

level of functioning than the ALJ ultimately found; (2) finding medical evidence

supported the ALJ’s finding that none of Colon-Lockhart’s impairments equaled any of

the listings in Defendant’s Regulation; (3) determining that Colon-Lockhart argued she

met Listing 14.00; (4) finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s credibility

finding; and (5) confirming the medical treatment Colon-Lockhart received did not

support her testimony of disabling pain.

Magistrate Judge Whalen thoroughly lays out the facts, relevant portions of the

2

2:14-cv-14336-VAR-RSW Doc # 29 Filed 03/25/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 529
administrative record, and the procedural history of the case in his R&R. In considering

the record, Magistrate Judge Whalen applies relevant case law and gives well reasoned

explanations for his conclusions. None of Colon-Lockhart’s objections has merit.

III. Conclusion

The Court ADOPTS the R&R. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED; Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

Judgement will enter in favor of Defendant.

IT IS ORDERED. 

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: March 25, 2016

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

March 25, 2016.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

3

2:14-cv-14336-VAR-RSW Doc # 29 Filed 03/25/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 530