UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

LISA MARIE FOX, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-10968 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Commissioner of social security, 

 

Defendant. 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING THE REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 

AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti authored a Report and Recommendation addressing 

Plaintiff Lisa Marie Fox’s motion for summary judgment and Defendant commissioner of social 

security, Carolyn W. Colvin’s, motion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 13, 17. In the report 

and recommendation, Judge Patti recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 

and granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff timely filed 

objections. ECF No. 22. 

Pursuant to a de novo review of the record, Plaintiff Fox’s objections will be overruled 

and the report and recommendation will be adopted. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 

will be denied, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be granted, and Plaintiff’s claims 

will be dismissed with prejudice. 

I. 

The Magistrate Judge adequately summarized the background of this case in his January 

report and recommendation, with a single exception. As Plaintiff Fox notes in her first objection, 

1:15-cv-10968-TLL-APP Doc # 25 Filed 03/04/16 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 753
- 2 - 

the report and recommendation mistakenly notes that Dr. Sabbagh found that Plaintiff had a 

“right ankle jerk” in his June 1, 2012 report. As noted by Plaintiff, Dr. Sabbagh actually found 

that Plaintiff Fox had an “absent right ankle jerk.” See Tr. 424. With the exception of this 

scrivener’s error, the summary as set forth by the magistrate judge in his report and 

recommendation is adopted in full. 

II. 

 When reviewing a case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court must affirm the 

Commissioner’s conclusions “absent a determination that the Commissioner has failed to apply 

the correct legal standards or has made findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence in 

the record.” Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 528 (6th Cir. 1997) (citations 

omitted). Substantial evidence is “such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate 

to support a conclusion.” Id. (citation omitted). 

III.

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a party may object to and seek review of 

a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Objections must 

be stated with specificity. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985) (citation omitted). If 

objections are made, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate 

judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review 

requires at least a review of the evidence before the Magistrate Judge; the Court may not act 

solely on the basis of a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. See Hill v. Duriron Co., 

656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). After reviewing the evidence, the Court is free to accept, 

reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. See Lardie v. Birkett, 

221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002). 

1:15-cv-10968-TLL-APP Doc # 25 Filed 03/04/16 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 754
- 3 - 

 Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. 

Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). “The parties have the duty to pinpoint those 

portions of the magistrate’s report that the district court must specially consider.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). A general objection, or one that merely restates the 

arguments previously presented, does not sufficiently identify alleged errors on the part of the 

magistrate judge. See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F.Supp.2d 934, 937 (E.D.Mich.2004). An 

“objection” that does nothing more than disagree with a magistrate judge’s determination, 

“without explaining the source of the error,” is not considered a valid objection. Howard v. Sec’y 

of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Without specific objections, 

“[t]he functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the 

district court perform identical tasks. This duplication of time and effort wastes judicial resources 

rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrate’s Act.” Id. 

Plaintiff Fox raises eleven objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

recommendation. The first three of Plaintiff’s objections will be specifically addressed by this 

Court. The remainder of Plaintiff’s objections consists primarily of allegations that neither the 

ALJ nor the magistrate judge properly understands the evidence or social security law, general 

disagreement with the magistrate judge’s findings, restatements of arguments previously 

presented and rejected by the magistrate judge, and hypothetical questions. These objections are 

improper and will be overruled. 

A. 

In her first objection, Fox argues that by failing to correctly find that Fox had an “absent 

right ankle jerk”, the magistrate judge missed a critical piece of evidence that qualifies Fox under 

Listed Impairment 1.04 and rebuts the ALJ’s conclusion that Fox was not disabled. To the 

1:15-cv-10968-TLL-APP Doc # 25 Filed 03/04/16 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 755
- 4 - 

contrary, the magistrate judge’s scrivener’s error regarding Fox’s absent right ankle jerk had no 

bearing on his later analysis. See ECF No. 19, pp. 21-23. Furthermore, the finding of an absent 

right ankle jerk does not undercut any of the substantial evidence in the record supporting the 

ALJ’s determination that Fox did not qualify under Listed Impairment 1.04. Plaintiff Fox’s first 

objection will be overruled. 

B. 

 In her second objection, Fox argues that the magistrate judge gave a prejudicial summary 

of Doctor Williams’ findings. Her argument apparently rests on a contention that the magistrate 

judge’s summary of the report was not long enough. However, the magistrate judge’s summary 

of the facts was just that – a summary. Neither justice nor judicial efficiency would be served by 

requiring magistrate judge’s to set forth every single fact and finding in an over 400 page social 

security transcript. The magistrate judge’s report accurately provides a background of the 

relevant facts underlying Fox’s disability claims. 

In a corollary argument, Fox argues that the ALJ improperly credited the “great weight” 

that the ALJ placed on the findings of Doctor Thomas Tsai, MD, a non-treating psychiatrist. As 

part of that argument, Plaintiff Fox erroneously claims that Doctor Tsai’s findings failed to 

consider any of Doctor Williams’ office notes. TR. 92-93, 404-408. As explained by the 

magistrate judge in his report, “nothing in the Regulations indicates that the ALJ was not entitled 

to rely on the opinion of a non-examining physician. Instead, such individuals are considered 

‘highly qualified physicians and psychologists who are also experts in Social Security disability 

evaluation,’ such that ALJ’s ‘must consider’ their findings as opinion evidence.” ECF No. 19 

(Citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(e)(2)(i). The magistrate judge then noted that Doctor Tsai’s opinion 

was supported by other evidence in the record, including Plaintiff Fox’s own testimony that she 

1:15-cv-10968-TLL-APP Doc # 25 Filed 03/04/16 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 756
- 5 - 

was able to get along with her daughters, keep in contact with friends and neighbors, and 

maintain close contact with her best friend. See TR. 18, 411. Because the ALJ gave sufficient 

reasons for affording great weight to the findings and opinion of Doctor Tsai, Fox’s second 

objection will be overruled. 

C. 

In her third objection, Plaintiff Fox argues that the magistrate judge did not properly 

address her argument that her condition was equivalent to Listed Impairment 1.04A. In his 

report, the magistrate judge specifically found that Plaintiff could not meet or equal Listing 

1.04A because the record demonstrates that Plaintiff Fox had full muscle strength. In her 

objections Plaintiff Fox acknowledges that there is no direct evidence of muscle weakness in the 

record. See ECF No. 22, p. 7. 

 Not only is there no evidence that Fox suffered from any muscle weakness, but the ALJ 

specifically found that Fox’s disorder of the spine was “not characterized by nerve root 

compression with the necessary motor loss and sensory reflex loss.” TR. 17. The ALJ further 

found that there was no evidence of “positive straight leg raising tests (both sitting and supine). 

Id. As noted by the magistrate, the record contains substantial evidence of a negative straight leg 

test and evidence of a single borderline positive straight leg raise test on the right leg only. TR 

337, 339. Fox’s equivalence argument primarily rests on an argument that the magistrate judge 

does not understand the concept of medical equivalence and a request for this Court to “play 

doctor” and make its own medical diagnoses based on a compilation of symptoms. This 

argument is improper, especially considering the fact that Fox has cited no precedent whatsoever 

in regulation, rule, or case law suggesting her condition should be considered equivalent to 

Listing 1.04A. Fox’s third objection will be overruled. 

1:15-cv-10968-TLL-APP Doc # 25 Filed 03/04/16 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 757
- 6 - 

D. 

 As noted above, the remainder of Fox’s arguments were already addressed and rejected 

by the magistrate judge. These objections that merely restate arguments previously presented 

and rejected are not proper objections, and serve only to waste judicial resources. See VanDiver, 

304 F.Supp.2d at 937. The Court has reviewed these objections de novo, and now overrules 

them. 

IV. 

Because the ALJ reached her decision using correct legal standards and because those 

findings were supported by substantial evidence, the Court must affirm it, even if reasonable 

minds could disagree on whether the individual was disabled or substantial evidence could also 

support a contrary result. Wright v. Massanari, 321 F.3d 611, 614 (6th Cir. 2003); see also 

Longworth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 402 F.3d 591, 595 (6th Cir. 2006) (“If substantial evidence 

supports the Commissioner’s decision, this Court will defer to that finding even if there is 

substantial evidence in the record that would have supported an opposite conclusion.”).

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Fox’s objections, ECF No. 22, are 

OVERRULED. 

 It is further ORDERED that the report and recommendation, ECF No. 19, is 

ADOPTED. 

 It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Fox’s motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 13, 

is DENIED. 

 It is further ORDERED that Defendant Colvin’s motion for summary judgment, ECF 

No. 17, is GRANTED. 

1:15-cv-10968-TLL-APP Doc # 25 Filed 03/04/16 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 758
- 7 - 

 It is further ORDERED that the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision is 

AFFIRMED. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: March 4, 2016 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on March 4, 2016. 

 s/Michael A. Sian 

 MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager 

1:15-cv-10968-TLL-APP Doc # 25 Filed 03/04/16 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 759