UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MYRNA JEAN LALONE, 

Plaintiff, Case Number 09-12172

Honorable David M. Lawson

v. Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

__________________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT, AND AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER

The plaintiff filed the present action on June 6, 2009 seeking review of the Commissioner’s

decision denying the plaintiff’s claim for disability and disability insurance benefits (DIB) under

Title II. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mona J. Majzoub pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(b)(3). Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion for

summary judgment to reverse the decision of the Commissioner and the defendant filed a motion

for summary judgment requesting affirmance of the decision of the Commissioner. Magistrate

Judge Majzoub filed a report on August 17, 2010 recommending that the plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment be denied, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted, and the

decision of the Commissioner affirmed.

On June 9, 2009, the plaintiff filed a document purporting to be objections to the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation. In that document, the plaintiff does not object to the substance

of the report and recommendation. Instead, she submitted a five-page letter asserting that she still

experiences pain in her shoulder and does not believe that she can work.
-2-

Generally, objections to a report and recommendation are reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). However, the Sixth Circuit has stated that “[o]verly general objections do not satisfy the

objection requirement.” Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006). “The objections

must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and

contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). “‘[O]bjections disput[ing] the

correctness of the magistrate’s recommendation but fail[ing] to specify the findings . . . believed [to

be] in error’ are too general.” Spencer, 449 F.3d at 725 (quoting Miller, 50 F.3d at 380).

“[T]he failure to file specific objections to a magistrate’s report constitutes a waiver of those

objections.” Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004). The Court must conclude in

this case that the plaintiff has waived her right to object to the substance of the report, and this Court

need not conduct a de novo review of the issues thoroughly addressed by the magistrate judge. See

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (holding that the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s

report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motion); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n

of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Moreover, after examining the record,

the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that the defendants’ motions should be granted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [dkt

# 19] is ADOPTED.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [dkt. #17] is

DENIED and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment [dkt. #15] is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that the findings of the Commissioner are AFFIRMED.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge
-3-

Dated: September 23, 2010

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on September 23, 2010.

s/Teresa Scott-Feijoo 

TERESA SCOTT-FEIJOO