1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

VALERIE BELL,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 15-11104

HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [#22] TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#17] AND TO GRANT DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#21]

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (Doc # 22) 

filed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen on Plaintiff Valerie Bell’s pro se Motion 

for Summary Judgment (Doc # 17), and Defendant Commissioner of Social 

Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 21). To date, no objections were 

filed to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to file such has passed. The 

Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, DENIES Bell’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS the Commissioner’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment.
2

The background facts of this matter are adequately set forth in the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the Court adopts them here.

The standard of review by the district court when examining a Report and 

Recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636. This Court “shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or the specified proposed findings or 

recommendations to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The 

court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. In order to preserve the right 

to appeal the magistrate judge’s recommendation, a party must file objections to the 

Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service of the Report and 

Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections 

constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 

155 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th 

Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).

After review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the 

Court finds that his findings and conclusions are correct. The Court agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) was correct in finding 

that Plaintiff’s severe impairments did not meet or equal any impairment listed in 20 

C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (Doc # 14-2, Pg ID 16-18). The Court also 

agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ’s formulation of Bell’s Residual 
3

Functional Capacity (“RFC”)—light work with limitations—sufficiently accounts 

for Bell’s physical and psychological limitations. The RFC is sufficiently supported 

by substantial evidence as set forth by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and 

Recommendation, and is within the discretion accorded the administrative factfinder.

The Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the material submitted 

subsequent to the ALJ’s decision does not provide grounds for remand. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc # 22) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court’s 

findings of fact and conclusions of law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Commissioner of Social 

Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc # 21) is GRANTED.

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

Judgment (Doc # 17) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Dated: September 15, 2017 s/Denise Page Hood

Chief, U.S. District Court
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

record on September 15, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Julie Owens Acting in the Absence of LaShawn R. Saulsberry

Case Manager