UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AHMED AL-JALHAM,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 15-11991

DISTRICT JUDGE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATRICIA T. MORRIS

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. #17)

GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. # 14) 

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. # 11)

Plaintiff Ahmed Al-Jalham (“Al-Jalham”) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

405(g). He appeals the denial of Social Security disability benefits by the Commissioner

of Social Security (the “Commissioner”). The Appeals Council denied Al-Jalham’s

Request for Review of the decision issued by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on

February 6, 2014. That ALJ decision stands as the Commissioner’s final decision. The

parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court referred those motions to

Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris. 

Magistrate Judge Morris issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion and deny Al-Jalham’s.

Magistrate Judge Morris found that: (1) The ALJ properly assessed the side effects of

Al-Jalham’s medication; (2) the ALJ explicitly addressed Al-Jalham’s combination of

impairments, but that Al-Jalham failed to directly address the ALJ’s application of the

1

2:15-cv-11991-VAR-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 09/14/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 509
combination of his impairments and waived that issue; (3) the ALJ gave proper weight

to and good reasons for the opinions and assessments of Al-Jalham’s treating medical

sources, including those of Dr. Nasser, but that Al-Jalham failed to directly raise an

argument concerning the adequacy of the ALJ’s reasons for assigning little weight to Dr.

Nasser’s opinion, and waived that issue; and (4) the ALJ’s assessment of Al-Jalham’s

credibility as non-persuasive -- in light of Al-Jalham’s representations, medical records,

conservative treatment history, side effects from medication, activities of daily living, and

his work history since the alleged onset date -- is supported by substantial evidence.

Al-Jalham filed objections to the R&R. They relate to: (1) the assessment of the

side effects of medication; (2) the consideration given to how the combination of 

multiple impairments will affect his ability to hold substantial gainful employment; (3) the

weight given to Dr. Nasser’s opinions; and (4) the credibility assessment. The

Commissioner responded to the objections.

After proper objections are made, the Court reviews de novo a Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation on a dispositive motion. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F.

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Id. A district court need not conduct

de novo review where the objections are "[f]rivolous, conclusive or general." Mira v.

Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir.1986) (citation omitted); see also Rice v. Comm'r of

Soc. Sec., 169 F. App'x 452, 453-54 (6th Cir. 2006) ("issues adverted to in a perfunctory

manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed

waived.") (quoting McPherson v. Kelsey, 125 F.3d 989, 995-96 (6th Cir.1997)). After

completing a de novo review, there is no requirement that the district court articulate all

2

2:15-cv-11991-VAR-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 09/14/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 510
of the reasons it rejects a party's objections. Tuggle v. Seabold, 806 F.2d 87, 93 (6th

Cir. 1986); Dickey-Williams v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 975 F. Supp. 2d 792, 798 (E.D.

Mich. 2013). 

After carefully reviewing the cross motions for summary judgment, the R&R, AlJalham’s objections, the Commissioner’s response, and the remainder of the record, the

Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Morris’s conclusions. 

Magistrate Judge Morris accurately laid out the facts and relevant portions of the

administrative record; she engaged in a thorough analysis of the issues and provided

reasoned explanations for her conclusions. In reaching her conclusions, Magistrate

Judge Morris considered the entire record and applied the appropriate standard for

review of an ALJ’s decision. 

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Morris’s Report and

Recommendation: Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security is AFFIRMED. 

IT IS ORDERED. 

 /s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: September 14, 2016

3

2:15-cv-11991-VAR-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 09/14/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 511
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

September 14, 2016.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

4

2:15-cv-11991-VAR-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 09/14/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 512