UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID B. RICHARDS, JR.,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

09-CV-10139

vs.

HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND

OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS

This is a social security case. Plaintiff David B. Richards, Jr. (“Richards”) challenges the

partially favorable final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) in which

the Commissioner determined that Richards was disabled as of January 1, 2003, but not disabled as

of May 26, 2000, the onset date alleged by Richards. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge

Charles E. Binder for all pretrial proceedings. Richards and the Commissioner filed cross motions

for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Binder issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) in

which he recommends that the Commissioner’s motion [docket entry 15] be granted and that

Richards’s motion [docket entry 16] be denied.

On August 13, 2009, Richards filed objections to the R&R. The court reviews de novo those

portions of the R&R to which a specific objection has been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b). In his objections, Richards states that “[t]he sum and substance of the

recommendation by the Magistrate is that after the motor vehicle accident of May 26, 2000, the

2:09-cv-10139-PDB-CEB Doc # 19 Filed 09/29/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 675
2

Plaintiff was no longer disabled because the claimant’s frontal laceration as of July 2000, was well

healed.” The Court disagrees with this statement. In addition to noting that “Plaintiff’s frontal

lacerations from his car accident were ‘well-healed,’” the Magistrate Judge noted as follows: 

The doctor noted that Plaintiff does complain of some double vision, but

extraocular movements are grossly intact.” (Id.) A CT scan performed on

August 1, 2008, showed the “area of encephalomalacia and pneumocephalus

is smaller” and that “his CSF leak has sealed off.” (Tr. at 214.) On August

17, 2000, Plaintiff’s doctor noted he “has had no significant headaches,” “no

CSF leak,” “does still note some double vision, although his extraocular

movements seem intact” and had “complete resolution of the

pneumocephalus.” (Tr. at 213.)

R&R at 9. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge noted that “although Plaintiff now argues that the

‘seizures have continued from 2000 to 2003,’ (Doc. 16 at 34), his own statements to doctors and the

medical evidence do not support his current stance.” Id.

Having reviewed this matter de novo, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Binder correctly

and thoroughly analyzed all of the issues presented and that he reached the proper conclusions for

the proper reasons. Therefore, the Court will accept and adopt the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendations as the findings and conclusions of the Court. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s R&R is accepted and adopted as the findings

and conclusions of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment

[docket entry 15] is granted.

2:09-cv-10139-PDB-CEB Doc # 19 Filed 09/29/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 676
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richards’ Motion for Summary Judgment [docket entry

16] is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Richards’ objections are overruled.

S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 29, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

September 29, 2009.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-10139-PDB-CEB Doc # 19 Filed 09/29/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 677