UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES M. DEPWEG,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-11705

v. Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on August 24, 2015 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

Chief Judge, United States District Court

On July 17, 2015, Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff James M.

Depweg’s motion for summary judgment and grant the Defendant Commissioner of

Social Security’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed objections to the R & R

on July 29, 2015, and Defendant responded to these objections on August 4, 2015. The

Court has now reviewed the R & R, Plaintiff’s objections, Defendant’s response, the

parties’ underlying summary judgment motions, and the remainder of the record. For the

reasons stated below, the Court finds no merit in Plaintiff’s objections, and therefore

2:14-cv-11705-GER-APP Doc # 21 Filed 08/24/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 579
adopts the Magistrate Judge’s thorough and well-reasoned R & R as the opinion of this

Court.

Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R & R consist entirely of

restatements of the very same contentions advanced in Plaintiff’s underlying summary

judgment motion, without any effort to even acknowledge the Magistrate Judge’s analysis

of these arguments in the R & R, much less explain how the Magistrate Judge might have

erred in this analysis. Plaintiff complains, for example, that the Administrative Law

Judge (“ALJ”) failed to fulfill his obligation to develop the medical record on behalf of

Plaintiff, who was not represented by counsel at the time of the hearing before the ALJ. 

(See Plaintiff’s Objections at 2-4.) Yet, the Magistrate Judge thoroughly addressed this

question in the R & R, noting that Plaintiff had identified “compelling” grounds for

needing assistance in developing the record and otherwise presenting his case, but then

explaining (i) that Plaintiff demonstrated sufficient understanding of and familiarity with

the administrative process to adequately pursue his case before the ALJ, and (ii) that,

more importantly, Plaintiff had failed to suggest — even after securing the representation

of counsel in these proceedings —what further information or records the ALJ could have

uncovered that would have bolstered his claim for benefits. (See R & R at 16-18.) While

Plaintiff asserts in wholly cursory fashion that an independent review by this Court will

reveal that Plaintiff’s administrative hearing was “unfair and inadequate,” (Plaintiff’s

Objections at 4), he fails to suggest any flaw in the Magistrate Judge’s contrary

conclusion, reached after careful examination of the record, that Plaintiff’s hearing before

2

2:14-cv-11705-GER-APP Doc # 21 Filed 08/24/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 580
the ALJ met the standards of fairness set forth in the pertinent regulations and case law. 

Neither has the Court’s own review disclosed any such flaws in the Magistrate Judge’s

analysis.

Similarly, Plaintiff’s remaining objections address points that are thoroughly

considered and analyzed in the Magistrate Judge’s R & R, and Plaintiff has failed to

identify any purported errors in the Magistrate Judge’s treatment of these issues. Plaintiff

argues that the ALJ’s assessment of his residual functional capacity failed to fully account

for the effects of his obesity, affective disorder, and carpal tunnel syndrome, yet the

Magistrate Judge addressed each of these points in the R & R. (See R & R at 20-24.) 

While Plaintiff continues to express his disagreement with the ALJ’s consideration of

these impairments, (see Plaintiff’s Objections at 6-9), he has utterly failed to suggest how

the Magistrate Judge might have erred in concluding that the ALJ’s determination of

Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity was supported by substantial evidence. Likewise,

to the extent that Plaintiff continues to suggest that the ALJ drew improper inferences

from his failure to seek medical treatment and unduly discounted his credibility based on

his use of marijuana, the Magistrate Judge explicitly addressed these issues in the R & R,

(see R & R at 26-28), and Plaintiff again offers only his counsel’s rhetoric and

unsupported assertions in lieu of suggesting any particular flaws in the Magistrate Judge’s

analysis of these issues. As Defendant observes, Plaintiff’s bare disagreement with the

conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge, without any effort to identify any specific

errors in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis that, if corrected, might warrant a different

3

2:14-cv-11705-GER-APP Doc # 21 Filed 08/24/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 581
outcome, is tantamount to an outright failure to lodge objections to the R & R. See

Howard v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)

(holding that “[a] general objection to the entirety of the magistrate’s report has the same

effects as would a failure to object,” because such a generalized objection fails to focus

the district court’s attention “on any specific issues for review, thereby making the initial

reference to the magistrate useless”).

For these reasons,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s July 29, 2015

objections (docket #19) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation are

OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s July 17, 2015

Report and Recommendation (docket #18) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

Finally, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s

4

2:14-cv-11705-GER-APP Doc # 21 Filed 08/24/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 582
Report and Recommendation, that Plaintiff’s August 25, 2014 motion for summary

judgment (docket #14) is DENIED, and that Defendant’s October 7, 2014 motion for

summary judgment (docket #15) is GRANTED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: August 24, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on August 24, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5135

5

2:14-cv-11705-GER-APP Doc # 21 Filed 08/24/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 583