UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KELVIN JENKINS,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-CV-12126

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

MAG. JUDGE ELIZABETH STAFFORD

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE

JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 22]

Pro se plaintiff Kelvin Jenkins challenges defendant Commissioner of Social

Security’s denial of his claim for social security disability benefits. Before the court is

defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which was referred to the magistrate judge

for a report and recommendation. Although plaintiff did not file a formal cross-motion

for summary judgment, plaintiff did submit a filing identified as “additional information,”

and medical records (Doc. 9, 17), which have been considered. On July 22, 2016,

Magistrate Judge Stafford issued a report recommending that defendant’s motion for

summary judgment be granted. The court has reviewed the file, record, and magistrate

judge's report and recommendation. Plaintiff has filed objections to that report which

this court has duly considered. For the reasons set forth below, this court shall accept

and adopt the magistrate judge’s report.

The facts of this case are set forth in the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation and upon review of the record, the court accepts the recitation of the

-1-

2:15-cv-12126-GCS-EAS Doc # 25 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 474
facts set forth there as the factual findings of this court. 

STANDARD OF LAW

“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of a

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." Id. A district court

may affirm, modify, or reverse the Commissioner’s decision, with or without remand. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Findings of fact by the Commissioner are conclusive if

supported by substantial evidence. Id. The court must affirm the decision if it is "based

on [an appropriate] legal standard and is supported by substantial evidence in the

record as a whole." Studaway v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 815 F.2d

1074, 1076 (6th Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v.

Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). 

ANALYSIS

The Commissioner argues that the court should not consider plaintiff’s objections

on the merits as they are merely recitations of the identical arguments that were before

the magistrate judge and fail to identify any specific errors in the magistrate judge’s

proposed recommendations. See Davis v. Caruso, No. 07-10115, 2008 WL 540818, at

*2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 25, 2008); Owens v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12-47, 2013 WL

1304470, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2013). Indeed, the magistrate judge’s order

advised plaintiff that each objection “must specify precisely the provision of this Report

and Recommendation to which it pertains.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff has not

-2-

2:15-cv-12126-GCS-EAS Doc # 25 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 475
done so here. Instead, plaintiff’s “objections” consist of a statement of his alleged

disability. Specifically, he states:

I am very depressed due to all my illnesses[.] I’m not able to function in a

full life[.] The dizz[i]ness, bumping into walls, my sugar constantly

elevating and dropping every day. Shaking. Sweating. [R]apid heartbeat,

[t]he high blood pressure, I have to lay down [b]efore I fall out[.] I have to

get somebody [to] help me to make my meals. I’m very restricted of doing

mobile things.

(Doc. 23). Although plaintiff has not complied with the rules for filing a proper objection,

the court does not hold pro se filings to the same stringent standard as formal pleadings

drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Even considering

plaintiff’s objection on the merits, however, substantial evidence supports the

Commissioner’s decision, and plaintiff’s objections shall be overruled.

The record is clear that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) considered all of

the above stated impairments and found them not to be credible nor supported by

medical evidence. The ALJ found that all of plaintiff’s alleged impairments, as

reiterated in plaintiff’s objections now before the court, were not fully credible in light of

evidence that plaintiff was living by himself, preparing his own meals, doing laundry,

going shopping, driving to the store and to medical appointments, and taking care of his

own personal needs. “Discounting credibility to a certain degree is appropriate where

an ALJ finds contradictions among the medical reports, claimant’s testimony, and other

evidence.” Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 1997). An

ALJ’s finding concerning the credibility of an applicant is entitled to great weight and

deference. Id. 

The ALJ’s determination, in this case, that the overall weight of the evidence was

-3-

2:15-cv-12126-GCS-EAS Doc # 25 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 476
inconsistent with plaintiff’s allegations of his limitations is supported by the record. 

Substantial medical evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff was not

disabled because he did not have a listed impairment, and although he could no longer

perform his past relevant work as a truck driver or general laborer, there were a

significant number of other jobs in the national economy, including sorter, inspector,

and hand packager, that plaintiff could do.

CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED that the court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the magistrate judge's

report and recommendation (Doc. 22).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for summary

judgment (Doc. 21) is GRANTED, plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 23) are OVERRULED, and

plaintiff’s claim is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Dated: August 16, 2016

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

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

on Kelvin Jenkins, 9000 Isham, Detroit, MI 48213.

s/Barbara Radke

Deputy Clerk

-4-

2:15-cv-12126-GCS-EAS Doc # 25 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 477