UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DUANE FUNDERBURG, 

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 15-10068

Hon. Denise Page Hood 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

and

DISMISSING ACTION

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s

Report and Recommendation. [Doc. No. 19, filed February 5, 2016] Timely

objections and a response to the objections were filed in this matter. [Doc. Nos. 20]

 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

2:15-cv-10068-DPH-MKM Doc # 22 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 711
397. The decision of the Commissioner must be upheld if supported by substantial

eidence, 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. Plaintiff

objects to the Magistrate Judge’s: (a) alleged failure to consider severe

impairments, including prostate cancer, thus formulating a faulty residual

functional capacity, (b) acceptance of the ALJ’s credibility assessment, which

Plaintiff contends violates SSR 96-7, and (c) finding that the Commissioner proved

the existence of step five of the sequential analysis. 

In reviewing Plaintiff’s filings in this Court, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s

objections are merely a restatement the arguments he presented in his summary

judgment brief,1

 an approach that is not appropriate or sufficient. See, e.g.,

O’Connell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2016 WL 537771, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 11,

2016) (citing Betancourt v. Ace Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, 313 F.Supp.2d 32, 34

1

In fact, the overwhelming majority of the text in Plaintiff’s Objections has been

pulled verbatim from his summary judgment brief. For Objection 1, compare

Docket No. 14, at 18-19 with Docket No. 20, at 2-3; for Objection 2, compare

Docket No. 14, at 20 with Docket No. 20, at 3-4; and for Objection 3, compare

Docket No. 14, at 24-25 with Docket No. 20, at 5. 

2

2:15-cv-10068-DPH-MKM Doc # 22 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 712
(D.P.R. 2004)); Davis v. Caruso, No. 07-10115, 2008 WL 540818, at *2 (E.D.

Mich. Feb. 25, 2008) (denying an objection to an R&R where, among other things,

Plaintiff “merely rehashe[d] his arguments”). As the Western District of Michigan

has explained:

This Court is not obligated to address objections made in this form

because the objections fail to identify the specific errors in the

magistrate judge’s proposed recommendations, and such objections

undermine the purpose of the Federal Magistrate’s Act...which serves

to reduce duplicative work and conserve judicial resources.” 

Owens v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 12-47, 2013 WL 1304470, at *3 (W.D. Mich.

Mar. 28, 2013) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). See also Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b)(2) (objecting party is required to “file specific written objections to the

proposed findings and recommendations” ). As Plaintiff has failed to file specific

written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and

recommendations, the Court need not and does not analyze his objections. 

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

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

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Mona K. Majzoub [Doc. No. 19, filed February 5, 2016] is ACCEPTED and

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

3

2:15-cv-10068-DPH-MKM Doc # 22 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 713
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections [Doc. No. 20,

filed February 18, 2016] are OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [Doc. No. 14, filed July 1, 2015] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [Doc. No. 16, filed August 7, 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

4

2:15-cv-10068-DPH-MKM Doc # 22 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 714