UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARTA PARDO,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 15-10597

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [14],

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [13] AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [10]

This matter comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation. (Dkt. 14.) The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (Id.)

Plaintiff timely filed two objections and Defendant filed a response to the objections. (Dkt.

15, 16.) Being fully advised in the premises and having reviewed the record and the

pleadings, the Court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections and ACCEPTS AND

ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. It is further ordered that

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment is GRANTED, and the case is hereby DISMISSED.

Plaintiff brings suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging Defendant’s final

decision denying her application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. (Dkt.

1.) The Magistrate Judge recommends granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant,

finding that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff is not disabled

2:15-cv-10597-NGE-DRG Doc # 17 Filed 03/17/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 628
under the Social Security Act. Plaintiff objects to two findings in the report and

recommendation: (1) that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s evaluation of the

credibility of Plaintiff’s testimony and (2) that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s

decision to discount Plaintiff’s treating physician’s opinion. These “objections,” however, are

the same two arguments made in Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, with little to no

reference to the report and recommendation. Those arguments were properly considered

and rejected by the Magistrate Judge, and the Court is not obligated to address objections

that merely rehash earlier arguments and fail to specifically identify errors in the report and

recommendation. See Nork v. Comm’r of Social Sec., No. 14-12511, 2015 WL 3620482,

at *1 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2015). 

The portions of Plaintiff’s objections that at least reference the report and

recommendation also fail. With regard to her first objection, Plaintiff contends, “contrary to

the Magistrate [Judge]’s assertion,” the ALJ “did not ... provide any reason for discrediting

Plaintiff’s testimony beyond general statements that she had ‘credited claimant’s

statements to the greatest extent possible in light of the above objective findings.’” (Dkt. 15,

at 4.) But even the excerpted language undermines Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ failed

to provide “any reason” for discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony—the quoted language itself

references “the above objective findings.” (Id.) The Court agrees with the Magistrate

Judge’s well-reasoned conclusion that the ALJ supported her credibility determination with

substantial evidence, including Plaintiff’s daily living activities, objective medical evidence,

and Plaintiff’s lack of adherence to prescribed treatment. 

With regard to her second objection, Plaintiff argues that a magistrate judge may not

“set personal expertise against that of an examining physician.” (Dkt. 15, at 5.) But Plaintiff

2

2:15-cv-10597-NGE-DRG Doc # 17 Filed 03/17/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 629
does not attempt to explain how the Magistrate Judge purportedly did this here. Rather, the

report and recommendation thoroughly considers the ALJ’s reasons for giving little weight

to the treating physician’s opinion1 that Plaintiff was “under significant limitations in her

activity.” (Dkt. 14, at 15-17.) For example, the Magistrate Judge points to the ALJ’s

discussion of inconsistencies between the physician’s opinion and Plaintiff’s CT findings,

her daily living activities, and even the doctor’s own progress notes. (Id.) The Court finds

that the Magistrate Judge did not “set personal expertise against that of an examining

physician” in any way, and agrees with the conclusion that substantial evidence supported

the ALJ’s decision to discount Plaintiff’s treating physician’s opinion. 

For the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections

and ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. It is

further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the case is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

S/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: March 17, 2016

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

on March 17, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Carol J. Bethel 

Case Manager

 1 As the Magistrate Judge notes, the Court need not address Defendant’s argument that

the physician’s statement was not a “medical opinion subject to the Treating Physician’s

Rule” because Plaintiff’s substantive argument lacks merit. (See Dkt. 14, at 15 n.5.)

3

2:15-cv-10597-NGE-DRG Doc # 17 Filed 03/17/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 630