Wiersum v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL WIERSUM,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-378 v. HON. ROBERT J. JONKER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. __________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Vermaat’s Report and Recommendation in this matter (ECF No. 18) and Plaintiff’s Objections to it (ECF No. 19). 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 . . . as 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 Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the Commissioner’s decision because the ALJ’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the Report and Recommendation itself; and Plaintiff’s Objections to it. After its review, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), argues Plaintiff, failed to articulate why his Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”) assessment did not account for leg elevation. Plaintiff says the

Magistrate Judge did not properly address this feature of the ALJ’s decision. The Court disagrees. As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, the ALJ carefully navigated experts who thought Plaintiff could do even more and settled on an RFC supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No. 18, PageID.1144). There is no error in that. See Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (“The substantial-evidence standard is met if a ‘reasonable mind might accept the relevant evidence as adequate to support a conclusion.’”) (quoting Warner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 390 (6th Cir. 2004)). Plaintiff’s objection, therefore, does

not alter the ALJ’s well-founded conclusions, and the Magistrate Judge was right to recommend affirmance. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, (ECF No. 18), is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 2. Defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s decision, (ECF No. 5-2), is AFFIRMED. 3. The matter is DISMISSED.

Dated: April 16, 2025 /s/ Robert J. Jonker ROBERT J. JONKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE