UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRUCE A. MELIUS,

 Plaintiff,

V. Case No. 15-CV-10820

Honorable Denise Page Hood 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING ACTION

This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford’s

Report and Recommendation. [#12] Plaintiff Bruce A. Melius filed this action on

March 16, 2015, asking this Court to review the Commissioner’s final decision to

deny his application for supplemental security income benefits. The parties filed cross

motions for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court

deny the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, grant Plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment to the extent he seeks remand but deny it to the extent it seeks

reversal and a direct award of benefits, and remand this matter back to the

Commissioner for further consideration, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §

405(g). Neither party filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation.

2:15-cv-10820-DPH-EAS Doc # 13 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 1133
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 397. The decision

of the Commissioner must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, 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. Finding no

error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the

Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Furthermore, as neither party has raised

an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the parties have

waived any further objections to the Report and Recommendation. Smith v. Detroit

Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (a party’s failure

2

2:15-cv-10820-DPH-EAS Doc # 13 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 1134
to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal); Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

For the reasons stated above,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 12, filed

February 9, 2016] is ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of

law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

[Docket No. 9, filed June 4, 2015] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [Docket No. 10, filed June 16, 2015] is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED back to the

Commissioner, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further

consideration of the opinion(s) of Plaintiff’s treating physician, Martin Jennings, D.O.,

and Plaintiff’s credibility. 

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: March 22, 2016

3

2:15-cv-10820-DPH-EAS Doc # 13 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 1135
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-10820-DPH-EAS Doc # 13 Filed 03/22/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 1136