1 

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BOBBIE IRENE COX, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs Case No: 15-12114 

 Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

ACTING COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Bobbie Cox appeals the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s 

denial of her application for supplemental security income benefits (“SSI”). The parties 

filed cross-motions for summary judgment. They were referred to Magistrate Judge 

Elizabeth A. Stafford. In her Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), Magistrate Judge 

Staffords recommends Defendant’s Motion be granted and Plaintiff’s Motion be denied. 

Plaintiff timely objected. 

The Court ADOPTS the R&R. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Where a Magistrate Judge’s R&R is objected to, the district court must conduct a 

de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which an objection has been made. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 

the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C). 

2:15-cv-12114-VAR-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 09/22/16 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 577
2 

B. DE NOVO REVIEW OF R&R PORTIONS TO WHICH PLAINTIFF OBJECTS. 

1. Objection 1: The Magistrate Judge, sua sponte, concludes that the Plaintiff 

is ineligible for SSI benefits because she refused to take prescribed 

medication. 

The Magistrate Judge’s review “is limited to determining whether [the ALJ’s 

decision] is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal 

standards.” Gentry v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708, 722 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting 

Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir.2007)). Magistrate Judge’s 

sua sponte finding does not change her overall review of the ALJ’s decision. The 

Magistrate Judge found the ALJ properly followed the five-step sequential evaluation 

process to determine whether Plaintiff was disabled. The Court agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff 

has not been under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act. 

2. Objection 2: The Magistrate Judge improperly discussed 20 C.F.R. 

§416.930. 

The Court agrees with the Defendant‘s position that this discussion by the 

Magistrate Judge was “irrelevant where she otherwise found the ALJ’s decision 

supported by substantial evidence and free of legal errors.” Def. Resp. 3. However, the 

Magistrate Judge’s interpretation of 20 C.F.R did not affect her review of the ALJ’s 

conclusion, which was supported by substantial evidence and free of error. 

3. Objection 3: The Magistrate Judge, sua sponte, found Dr. Magoon was 

not a treating source and the issues was not raised by. Defendant or the 

ALJ. 

The Court agrees that whether Dr. Magoon was a treating physician was not 

raised by the Commissioner or the ALJ. However, the sua sponte finding by the 

2:15-cv-12114-VAR-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 09/22/16 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 578
3 

Magistrate Judge did not affect her overall review of the ALJ’s decision and conclusion 

that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. 

To determine disability, the medical opinions will be considered along with the 

rest of the relevant evidence received. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 416.927. The ALJ gave 

little weight to Dr. Maroon’s opinion because his opinion is “out of proportion with the 

treatment notes and clinical presentation in the medical records of evidence.” Dck # 7-2, 

Tr. 44. The ALJ said that several treatment notes indicate the claimant maintained 

psychiatric stability. Additionally, Plaintiff took guardianship of her disabled son and 

testified that she is able to care for him and take him to doctor appointments. Objective 

evidence contradicts Dr. Maroon’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s impairments; thus, it is 

properly accorded little weight. See. Dyer v. Social Sec. Admin., 568 Fed. Appx. 422 

(2014) (unpublished) ( substantial evidence supported decision not to give controlling 

weight to the opinion of claimant’s treating physician because it is inconsistent with the 

weight of the medical evidence of record and the claimant’s daily activities). The ALJ 

found the opinions of the state agency psychologist and vocational expert were 

consistent with treatment notes and the claimant’s testimony. Thus, the ALJ’s decision 

to give greater weight to those opinions is warranted. 

4. Objection 4: The Magistrate Judge erred in finding that the ALJ properly 

assessed Plaintiff’s bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and its effect on her 

residual functional capacity. 

The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that there was no error in the ALJ’s 

failure to include further manipulative limitations. Plaintiff points to no objective evidence 

of greater manipulative limitations than the AL assessed. Substantial evidence supports 

the residual functional capacity finding, including the manipulative elements. 

2:15-cv-12114-VAR-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 09/22/16 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 579
4 

III. CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS the R&R. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 

#16) is GRANTED; Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #14) is DENIED. 

Judgment will enter in favor of Defendant. 

IT IS ORDERED. 

 S/Victoria A. Roberts 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: 9/22/2016 

2:15-cv-12114-VAR-EAS Doc # 23 Filed 09/22/16 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 580