Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security

W.D. Michigan

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedAugust 29, 2019

Docket1:18-cv-00578

StatusUnknown

This text of Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security (Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D. Mich. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONNIE JONES,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:18-CV-578 v. HON. ROBERT J. JONKER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. __________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation in this matter (ECF No. 19) and Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 20). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where, as here, a party has objected to portions of a Report and Recommendation, “[t]he district judge . . . has a duty to reject the magistrate judge’s recommendation unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she finds it justified.” 12 WRIGHT, MILLER, & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, § 3070.2, at 451 (3d ed. 2014). Specifically, the Rules provide that: The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the Report and Recommendation itself; and Plaintiff’s objections. The Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which recommends affirming the decision of the ALJ, factually sound and legally correct. The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly considered Plaintiff’s claims and determined that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings and decision. In his Objections, Plaintiff primarily reiterates and expands arguments he made in his original briefing. The

Magistrate Judge carefully considered and properly rejected these arguments. Nothing in Plaintiff’s Objections changes the fundamental analysis. After de novo review, this Court determines that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, for precisely the reasons detailed in the Report and Recommendation. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 19) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court. 2. Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 20) are OVERRULED. 3. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

Dated: August 29, 2019 /s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONNIE JONES,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:18-CV-578 v. HON. ROBERT J. JONKER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. __________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation in this matter (ECF No. 19) and Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 20). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where, as here, a party has objected to portions of a Report and Recommendation, “[t]he district judge . . . has a duty to reject the magistrate judge’s recommendation unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she finds it justified.” 12 WRIGHT, MILLER, & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, § 3070.2, at 451 (3d ed. 2014). Specifically, the Rules provide that: The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the Report and Recommendation itself; and Plaintiff’s objections. The Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which recommends affirming the decision of the ALJ, factually sound and legally correct. The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly considered Plaintiff’s claims and determined that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings and decision. In his Objections, Plaintiff primarily reiterates and expands arguments he made in his original briefing. The

Magistrate Judge carefully considered and properly rejected these arguments. Nothing in Plaintiff’s Objections changes the fundamental analysis. After de novo review, this Court determines that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, for precisely the reasons detailed in the Report and Recommendation. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 19) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court. 2. Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 20) are OVERRULED. 3. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.

Dated: August 29, 2019 /s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-commissioner-of-social-security-miwd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack