Hightower IV v. Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CHARLES HIGHTOWER, IV, Plaintiff, V. Case No. 19-13433 Honorable Denise Page Hood COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. / ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [#13] AND REMANDING ACTION This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge David R. Grand’s Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 13] Plaintiff filed this action on November 20, 2019, asking this Court to review the Commissioner’s final decision to deny his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. The parties filed cross

motions for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment to the extent he seeks remand but deny it to the extent it seeks

reversal and a direct award of benefits, and remand this matter back to the Commissioner for further consideration, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Neither party filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in reaching

his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The credibility findings of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) must not be discarded lightly and should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health and Human

Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court’s review of an ALJ’s decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve conflicts in the evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at 397. The decision

of the Commissioner must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even if the record might support a contrary decision or if the district court arrives at a different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d 106, 108 (6th Cir. 1984); Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).

The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. Finding no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the

Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Furthermore, as neither party has raised an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the parties have waived any further objections to the Report and Recommendation. Smith v. Detroit

Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (a party’s failure 2 to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 13, filed Nov. 20, 2020] is ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 10, filed Mar. 2, 2020] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [ECF No. 11, filed April 2, 2020] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED back to the Commissioner, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for consideration and

discussion of Plaintiff’s claim utilizing the correct application of the adult disability standards, including Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity according to the adult standards, consistent with the analysis set forth in the Report and Recommendation,

taking particular note of the Magistrate Judge’s discussion in footnote 2, as well as at pages 7-13, of the Report and Recommendation. IT IS ORDERED. s/Denise Page Hood DENISE PAGE HOOD DATED: September 30, 2021 United States District Judge