UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TYSON MEYER,

Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-13117

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. # 21) GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. # 19) AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(Doc. # 14)

Tyson Meyer (“Meyer”) lost his appeal of a final determination by the

Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), who denied Meyer’s application for

Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. This matter is now

before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, which the Court

referred to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. 

On June 9, 2015, Magistrate Judge Whalen filed a Report and Recommendation

(R&R) recommending that the Court grant the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary

Judgment, and deny Meyer’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 21).

Magistrate Judge Whalen found that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”): (1)

supported his proposition that Meyer did not require use of a wheelchair by substantial

evidence; (2) properly rejected Meyer’s treating physicians’ opinions because of their

lack of access to Michigan Department of Correction’s (“MDOC”) medical records,

1

2:14-cv-13117-VAR-RSW Doc # 24 Filed 07/10/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1446
which appeared to contradict some of Meyer’s claims, and the treating physicians’ own

diagnoses; (3) properly discounted the MDOC physicians’ observations because

observations were not “medical opinions,” and thus the treating physician rule did not

apply. Moreover, Magistrate Judge Whalen noted the MDOC’s medical records strongly

undermined Meyer’s disability claim; and (4) properly concluded Meyer’s “physiologic

opioid dependence, polypharmacy, sedative withdrawal syndrome, and suspected

opiate induced hyperalgesia” were “severe” impairments.

Meyer objected to the R&R. He says the ALJ erred by discounting Meyer’s

treating physician’s opinions and questioning his need for a wheelchair. The

Commissioner asks the Court to adopt the Report and Recommendation. 

A 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). A court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Id. A district court need not conduct

de novo review where the objections are "[f]rivolous, conclusive or general." Mira v.

Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir.1986)(citation omitted). 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. Tuggle v. Seabold, 806 F.2d 87, 93 (6th Cir. 1986).

The Court carefully reviewed the cross motions for summary judgment, the R&R,

Meyer’s objections, the Commissioner’s response, and the remainder of the record. The

Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Whalen’s conclusions. 

Magistrate Judge Whalen accurately laid out the facts and relevant portions of

the administrative record; he engaged in a thorough analysis of the issues and provided

2

2:14-cv-13117-VAR-RSW Doc # 24 Filed 07/10/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1447
reasoned explanations for his conclusions. In reaching his conclusions, Magistrate

Judge Whalen considered the entire record and applied the appropriate standard for

review of an ALJ’s decision. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, even if

evidence in the record supports another outcome. Casey v. Sec’y of Health and Human

Servs., 987 F.2d 1230, 1233 (6th Cir. 1993); Crisp v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,

790 F.2d 450, 453 n.4 (6th Cir. 1986). 

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Whalen’s Report and

Recommendation; GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and

DENIES Meyer’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: July 10, 2015

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

July 10, 2015.

S/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

3

2:14-cv-13117-VAR-RSW Doc # 24 Filed 07/10/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1448