UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Courtney Lynne Medina,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 15-11895

Honorable Sean F. Cox

Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Courtney Lynne Medina (“Plaintiff”) brought this action seeking judicial review

of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Defendant”) determination that she is not

entitled to social security benefits for her mental impairments under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc.

#1). 

Sometime thereafter, Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment. 

(Doc. #14, Pl.’s Br. and Doc. #17, Def.’s Br.). All proceedings in this case were referred to

Magistrate Mona K. Majzoub pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. #3). 

On July 7, 2016, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued a Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”), wherein she recommended that the Court DENY Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment, GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and REVERSE and REMAND

the decision of the Commissioner for an award of benefits. (Doc. #20, R&R at 1). Defendant

filed a timely objection to the July 7, 2016 R&R on July 21, 2016. (Doc. #21, Def.’s Obj.). 

1

2:15-cv-11895-SFC-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 742
Plaintiff timely responded to Defendant’s objection on August 2, 2016. (Doc. #22, Pl.’s Resp.)

The Court finds Defendant’s objection to be without merit. The Court shall therefore

ACCEPT AND ADOPT the R&R, GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and

DENY Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended

disposition of a matter by a Magistrate Judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen

(14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Objections must

“(A) specify the part of the order, proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which a

person objects; and (B) state the basis for the objection.” E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d). 

Objections are not “a second opportunity to present the argument already considered by

the Magistrate Judge.” Betancourt v. Ace Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, 313 F. Supp. 2d 32, 34

(D.P.R. 2004). Moreover, the district court should not consider arguments that have not first

been presented to the magistrate judge. See Stonecrest Partners, LLC v. Bank of Hampton

Roads, 770 F. Supp. 2d 778, 785 (E.D.N.C. 2011). 

“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition

that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the

recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge

with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

ANALYSIS 

In her summary judgment motion, Plaintiff argued that this matter should be reversed for

an award of benefits under sentence four because: (1) the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)

2

2:15-cv-11895-SFC-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 743
committed reversible error by failing to give “great and controlling weight” to Plaintiff’s treating

psychiatrist; (2) the ALJ failed to comply with the Remand order of this Court requiring the ALJ

to give controlling weight to the medical restrictions and opinions of the treating physician, or

give “good reasons” for rejecting that opinion; and (3) Plaintiff was, and remains, totally and

permanently disabled and is therefore entitled to an award of benefits under the Social Security

Act. (Pl.’s Br. at 1-2). 

Defendant cross-motioned for summary judgment arguing that: (1) the ALJ sufficiently

addressed the medical opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians; and (2) that in the event that the

ALJ did err, remand for a new hearing would be the appropriate remedy since the standard set

forth in Kalmbach v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 409 Fed. App’x 852, 865 (6th Cir. 2011) was not met. 

(Def.’s Br. at 21). 

Magistrate Judge Majzoub recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion and deny

Defendant’s motion because she found that the ALJ had failed to offer sufficiently good reasons

when he discounted Plaintiff’s treating physician’s (Dr. Raval) opinion and assigned it little

weight. (R&R at 12). After considering the record, Magistrate Judge Mazjoub concluded that

the proper procedure upon remand was to reverse the decision and award benefits to Plaintiff. 

(R&R at 16). 

Defendant has lodged one objection to Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s July 7, 2016 R&R. 

Namely, that remand for an award of benefits is not warranted. (Def.’s Obj. at 2). For the

reasons more fully developed below, the Court finds Defendant’s objection to be without merit. 

Moreover, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis as to the challenged issue. 

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Magistrate Judge Mazjoub correctly stated that

3

2:15-cv-11895-SFC-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 744
reversal for an award of benefits is appropriate “when ‘all essential factual issues have been

resolved and the record adequately establishes a plaintiff’s entitlement to benefits.’” (R&R at 15-

16) (quoting Faucher, v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 17 F.3d 171, 176 (6th Cir. 1994)). 

Entitlement to benefits can be established if “‘the decision is clearly erroneous, proof of

disability is overwhelming, or proof of disability is strong and evidence to the contrary is

lacking.’” (R&R at 16) (quoting Mowery v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 966, 973 (6th Cir. 1985)). 

Defendant’s objection asserts that:

Magistrate Judge Majzoub failed to point to proof of disability so strong as to

establish Plaintiff’s entitlement to benefits. Instead, by assessing the evidence as

she did, Magistrate Judge Majzoub, identified, at most, conflicting evidence that

the ALJ should be allowed to evaluate such that remand for further proceedings is

the more appropriate remedy. 

(Def.’s Obj. at 3). In making this argument, however, Defendant appears to misconstrue the

Magistrate Judge’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge did not identify conflicting evidence. To the

contrary, Magistrate Judge Mazjoub found that “there are no countervailing or contradictory

medical opinions in the record to which the ALJ pointed in support of his almost wholesale

rejection of the treating physician’s opinions.” (R&R at 14) (citing Kalmbach, 409 Fed. App’x

at 862). It is worth noting that even Defendant fails to cite any evidence in the record, which

contradicts the Magistrate Judge’s findings.

Rather than point to a specific deficiency in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning, Defendant

ignores the reasons underlying Magistrate Judge Mazjoub’s conclusions. Specifically, the

Magistrate Judge found that: 

After considering Dr. Raval’s records and opinions, plaintiff’s own testimony

regarding her mental condition, together with additional record evidence of

hospitalizations and severe mental psychosis, the undersigned concludes that

there exists strong evidence that plaintiff’s combined impairments meet or exceed

4

2:15-cv-11895-SFC-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 745
a listed impairment under the Social Security regulations. As noted above, two

vocational experts have testified that accepting Dr. Raval’s limitations would

preclude all competitive work. And, there effectively is no competing medical

evidence, which makes any denial of benefits on remand in this case

unsupportable by substantial evidence. As such, the appropriate procedure upon

remand is to reverse the decision of the Commissioner and award benefits to the

plaintiff.

Id. at 16. 

Defendant also argues that the Magistrate Judge fails to identify which listed impairment

is met under the regulations. This point is not persuasive. Defendant fails to cite authority for

the proposition that the Magistrate Judge must identify a listed impairment in order to conclude

that proof of disability is strong.1

 

As such, Defendant has not presented any argument that persuades this Court to reject

Magistrate Judge Mazjoub’s resolution of the challenged issue. For the reasons stated here and

the reasons outlined in the R&R, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall ADOPT AND ACCEPT the July 7, 2016

R&R. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Court shall therefore REVERSE and

REMAND the decision of the Commissioner for an award of benefits. 

1

 It is also worth noting that, here, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff suffered from the

following severe impairments: depression; mood disorder; bipolar disorder; post-traumatic stress

syndrome; anxiety; borderline personality disorder; and oppositional defiant disorder. (R&R at

3) (citing Tr. 393). The ALJ consequently determined that Plaintiff was not disabled because

she was capable of performing a significant number of jobs in the national economy. Id. at 4

(citing Tr. 408). But, as Magistrate Judge Mazjoub pointed out, two vocational experts testified

that accepting Dr. Raval’s limitations would preclude all employment. In rejecting Dr. Raval’s

opinion, the ALJ failed to cite any conflicting evidence in the record. In light of this, proof of

disability is strong.

5

2:15-cv-11895-SFC-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 746
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: August 16, 2016

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

August 16, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Shawna C. Burns 

Case Manager

6

2:15-cv-11895-SFC-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 747