UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHNATHAN M., Plaintiff, Case No. 24-12440 v. Honorable Shalina D. Kumar Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (ECF NO. 16); ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 15); DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 11); GRANTING COMMISSIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 13); AND AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

I. Introduction Plaintiff Johnathan M. appeals the final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”), who denied his application for childhood disability benefits (“CDB”), disability insurance benefits (“DIB”), and supplemental security income (“SSI”) under the Social Security Act. ECF No. 1. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(b)(3), this matter was referred for all pretrial matters to the assigned magistrate judge. ECF No. 9. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 11, 13. Page 1 of 6 On July 30, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). ECF No. 15. The R&R recommends that

plaintiff’s motion be denied; the Commissioner’s motion be granted; and the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed under sentence four of

(g).

Plaintiff timely filed objections to the R&R. ECF No. 16.

II. Standard of Review When a party files objections to an R&R on a dispositive matter, the Court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is

made.”

(b)(1). De novo review is only required, however, if the parties “serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In conducting a de novo review, “[t]he 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). A party’s failure to file objections to certain conclusions of the R&R waives any

further right to appeal on those issues. See Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Tchrs. Loc. 231,

, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to certain conclusions in the R&R releases the Court from its duty to

Page 2 of 6 independently review those issues. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985).

III. Analysis Plaintiff’s sole challenge to the R&R is that the magistrate judge erred in finding that the ALJ properly considered plaintiff’s subjective symptoms. Specifically, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred “in relying heavily on a

January 2023 primary care visit to conclude plaintiff was not credible about his subjective symptoms.” ECF No. 16. PageID.1593. Plaintiff asserts the magistrate judge’s reasoning that this January 2023 visit “aligned with other

evidence dating from 2010 to 2019” did not properly consider the “ample evidence” he cited in his opening brief about his “waxing and waning symptoms.”

at PageID.1594. He also argues that the magistrate judge’s reliance on DeLong v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,

(6th

Cir. 2014) in her holding that plaintiff was “requesting the Court to impermissibly reweigh the evidence” is inapposite. See

at PageID.1593. The Court first addresses plaintiff’s argument regarding the

magistrate judge’s reliance on DeLong, which he asserts is inapplicable because that case addressed the recovery of attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. This argument ignores that the cited portion of

Page 3 of 6 DeLong simply acknowledges a basic tenet of the federal courts’ standard of review for social security appeals:

Under the substantial-evidence standard, a court looks to an existing administrative record and asks whether it contains sufficient evidence to support the agency’s factual determinations. And whatever the meaning of substantial in other contexts, the threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency is not high. Substantial evidence, this Court has said, is more than a mere scintilla. It means—and means only—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

Biestek v. Berryhill,

(2019) (cleaned up). The substantial-evidence standard does not permit the court to independently weigh or resolve conflicts in the evidence. See Ulman v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

(6th Cir. 2012). The argument also ignores that the R&R cites at least two other cases that address the impermissibility of reweighing evidence considered by the ALJ. See ECF No. 15, PageID.1576, 1588. The remainder of plaintiff’s objection simply reiterates arguments presented in the summary judgment briefs and does not constitute an appropriate objection. Carr v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 15, 2022) (restated arguments previously presented do not sufficiently identify alleged errors by the magistrate judge and

Page 4 of 6 undermine the purpose of the Federal Magistrate’s Act to reduce duplicative work and conserve judicial resources).

The Court agrees with the R&R’s conclusion that the ALJ properly considered plaintiff’s subjective symptoms and addressed “treatment records that show exacerbation of symptoms but [that he] is generally

stable on medication. ECF No. 7-1, PageID.64. Plaintiff’s argument that his subjective symptoms had a more significant impact on him than is reflected in the decision is merely an invitation for the Court to reweigh the evidence presented to the ALJ. And as stated above, the Court may not reweigh

evidence and thus must decline plaintiff’s invitation to do so. See Dyson v. Comm’r or Soc. Sec.,

, 588 (6th Cir. 2019). Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.

IV. Conclusion For the reasons above, plaintiff’s objection to the R&R (ECF No. 16) is OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 15), DENIES plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 11), and GRANTS the

Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13). Judgment shall issue in favor of the Commissioner, AFFIRMING the Commissioner’s decision that plaintiff is not disabled under sentence four of

(g).

Page 5 of 6 s/ Shalina D. Kumar SHALINA D. KUMAR Dated: September 30, 2025 United States District Judge

Page 6 of 6