B. D. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

B. D.,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:25-cv-810 v. HON. JANE M. BECKERING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. ________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R, ECF No. 17), recommending that this Court affirm the Commissioner’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objection to the Report and Recommendation (Obj., ECF No. 18). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has reviewed de novo those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection has been made. The Court will deny the objection and issue this Opinion and Order. Plaintiff raises a single objection: “The Magistrate Judge erred in his assertion that the ALJ applied a ‘fresh look’ to [Plaintiff’s] current application” (Obj., ECF No. 18 at PageID.1068– PageID.1070). According to Plaintiff, the “ALJ’s own statements demonstrate that he . . . found that there was ‘no new’ evidence,” but Plaintiff’s “condition had changed substantial [sic] since the prior application” given a new “diagnosis of bipolar I disorder, manic episodes . . . and PTSD” by Dr. Mehta (Obj., ECF No. 18 at PageID.1068–1070). This objection lacks merit. The Report and Recommendation considered and rejected the argument set forth in this objection (see R&R, ECF No. 17 at PageID.1058–1066, addressing Plaintiff’s contentions related to his bipolar diagnosis, Dr. Mehta, and whether the ALJ determined Plaintiff had submitted new and material evidence). Although Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s ultimate conclusion (see Obj., ECF No. 18 at PageID.1069), he does not “specifically identify” the portions

of the Report and Recommendation’s analysis to which he objects, violating this Court’s rules. See W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). Plaintiff’s failure to engage with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and authorities defeats his objection. See id. Plaintiff’s objection fails for an additional, independently sufficient reason. He repeats arguments, sometimes verbatim, that he previously submitted to the Magistrate Judge (compare Pl. Br., ECF No. 11 at PageID.1016–1018 with Obj., ECF No. 18 at PageID.1068–1070). Such repetition does not constitute or preserve a proper objection to the Report and Recommendation. See Evans v. Ordiway, No. 2:24-CV-36, 2026 WL 309173, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 5, 2026) (“Plaintiff merely reiterates his arguments presented before the magistrate judge, which are not

valid objections to a report and recommendation. An ‘objection’ that merely ‘restates the arguments previously presented is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge.’”); Randy LV v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:25-CV-630, 2026 WL 1805490, at *1 (W.D. Mich. June 23, 2026) (“Plaintiff fails to identify factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, and to the extent Plaintiff simply reiterates arguments that he submitted below, he has failed to raise a proper objection.”); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995)) (“Such duplication defeats the purpose of the Federal Magistrates Act[.]”). At bottom, given that Plaintiff has failed to identify factual or legal error in the analysis and authorities provided by the Magistrate Judge, this Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court. Accordingly: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objection (ECF No. 18) is DENIED, the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 17) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court, and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is AFFIRMED. A Judgment will be entered consistent with this Opinion and Order.

Dated: July 31, 2026 /s/ Jane M. Beckering JANE M. BECKERING United States District Judge