UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

VICKIE KOHLS, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-11554 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub 

 

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 

 On April 29, 2015 Plaintiff Vickie Kohls initiated the above-captioned appeal of 

Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s adverse benefits decision. See ECF No. 1. On 

July 7, 2016 Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub issued a Report and Recommendation 

addressing Plaintiff Kohls’s motion for summary judgment and Defendant Commissioner’s 

motion for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 13, 18. In the report and recommendation, the 

magistrate judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff timely filed objections. ECF 

No. 22. Pursuant to a de novo review of the record, Plaintiff Kohls’ 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. 

1:15-cv-11554-TLL-MKM Doc # 24 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 794
- 2 - 

 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). 

 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). 

 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, 

1:15-cv-11554-TLL-MKM Doc # 24 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 795
- 3 - 

“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 

Kohls now raises two objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 

A. 

In her first objection, Kohls argues that the magistrate judge erred in concluding that the 

ALJ sufficiently addressed Kohls’s claims that her alleged disabilities met Listings 1.02 (joint 

disorders), 1.04 (spine disorders), 5.06 (inflammatory bowel diseases), or 9.00 (endocrine 

disorders). Kohls emphasizes Reynolds v. Commissioner of Social Security, 429 F. App’x 411 

(6th Cir. 2011) for the proposition that the ALJ must actually evaluate the evidence, compare it 

to the relevant section, and provide an explained conclusion in order to facilitate meaningful 

review and meet his regulatory requirements at Step Three. Id. at 416. The Commissioner 

responds by pointing to Sheeks v. Commissioner of Social Security, 544 Fed. App’x 639 (6th Cir. 

2013), an unpublished case in which the Sixth Circuit held that because an ALJ is not required to 

address every listing or “to discuss listings that the applicant clearly does not meet”, an ALJ 

“need not discuss listings that the applicant clearly does not meet, especially when the claimant 

does not raise the listing before the ALJ.” Id. at 641. To warrant discussion, the record must 

“raise[] a substantial question as to whether the claimant could qualify as disabled under a 

listing[.]” Id. (quoting Abbott v. Sullivan, 905 F.2d 918, 925 (6th Cir. 1990)). 

 A de novo review of the record suggests that Kohls did not raise any of the above 

mentioned Listings before the ALJ. See Tr. 96, 132-53, 176, 298-99, 346-53, 391-395. 

1:15-cv-11554-TLL-MKM Doc # 24 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 796
- 4 - 

Furthermore, in her filings to this Court Kohls does not develop any argument as to how her 

conditions raise a substantial question regarding whether her conditions meet or are equivalent to 

any of the Listings. As noted by the magistrate judge, these perfunctory arguments could be 

deemed waived. See Kennedy v. Commissioner of Social Security, 87 F. App’x 464, 466 (6th Cir. 

2003). 

 Addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s claims as to Listing 1.02, Plaintiff has not pointed to 

any record evidence that raises a substantial question of whether Kohls can ambulate effectively 

or whether she is unable to perform fine and gross movements effectively. See 20 C.F.R. Part 

404, Subpart P, App’x 1, § 2. Even in her filings with this Court Kohls has not pointed to any 

record evidence suggesting that she meets either of these two requirements. Kohls has therefore 

failed to establish even a “mere toehold” in the record suggesting that there is a substantial 

question as to whether her conditions meet or equal Listing 1.02. Sheeks, 544 F. App’x at 642. 

 As to Listing 1.04, Plaintiff again did not raise the Listing before the ALJ, and has not 

presented any evidence suggesting her conditions meet or equal it in her filings to this Court. 

Specifically, she has not cited any evidence suggesting nerve root compression with motor loss 

accompanied by sensory or reflex loss as evidenced by criteria set forth in 1.04A, spinal 

arachnoiditis confirmed by medical evidence as set forth in 1.04B, or, again, any evidence that 

she is unable to ambulate effectively as required by 1.04C. 

 As with the previous listings, Plaintiff does not even attempt to point the Court to any 

record evidence raising a substantial question of whether she meets Listing 5.06. Nor did she 

raise any arguments or present any evidence related to Listing 5.06 before the ALJ. Moreover, 

an independent review of the record by this Court does not provide Plaintiff with relief. While 

the record does contain evidence related to Plaintiff’s ulcerative colitis, diarrhea, and 

1:15-cv-11554-TLL-MKM Doc # 24 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 797
- 5 - 

constipation, there is no evidence of any endoscopy, biopsy, or other appropriate medically 

accepted imaging or operative findings that suggest a condition meeting or equaling Listing 5.06. 

Specifically, under 5.06(a) the record contains no evidence of any obstruction of Plaintiff’s 

stenotic areas that required hospitalization for intestinal decompression or surgery on at least two 

occasions. Under 5.06(b), the record does not raise a substantial question that Plaintiff 

experienced two of the six listed conditions in the same, consecutive six-month period. 

 Finally, the ALJ did not err in failing to discuss Listing 9.00. As explained by the 

magistrate judge, by its own terms there is no way to meet Listing 9.00 since endocrine disorders 

listed in that section are evaluated based on the complications caused to particular body systems. 

B.

 In her second objection, Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge erred in conducting her 

own “post hoc” analysis of the record and substituting her analysis for the ALJ’s. This objection 

is also without merit. Plaintiff’s objection misconstrues the report and recommendation. In the 

report, the magistrate is not engaged in impermissible post hoc analysis, but has merely set forth 

the challenged listings to illustrate how the record has not raised “a substantial question as to 

whether the claimant could qualify as disabled under a listing[.]” Sheeks, 544 Fed. App’x 639, 

(quoting Abbott, 905 F.2d at 925). 

II. 

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

OVERRULED. 

 It is further ORDERED that the report and recommendation, ECF No. 21, is 

ADOPTED. 

1:15-cv-11554-TLL-MKM Doc # 24 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 798
- 6 - 

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

13, is DENIED. 

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

ECF No. 18, is GRANTED. 

 It is further ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: August 30, 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 August 30, 2016. 

 s/Michael A. Sian 

 MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager 

1:15-cv-11554-TLL-MKM Doc # 24 Filed 08/30/16 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 799