LaVassuer v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RANDY LV,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-630
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
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. 24), recommending that this Court affirm the
Commissioner’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. 	The
matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation
(Obj., ECF No. 25). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. C IV. P. 72(b)(3), the
Court has reviewed de novo those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections
have been made. The Court will deny the objections, adopt the Report and Recommendation, and
issue the following Opinion and Order.
Plaintiff raises three separately numbered objections to the Report and Recommendation.
He offers just a few paragraphs of analysis, largely duplicating the briefing he submitted to the
Magistrate Judge (Obj., ECF No. 25 at PageID.1567–1571). 	For the reasons stated below, the
Court concludes that each of Plaintiff’s objections lack merit.
Case 1:25-cv-00630-JMB-SJB ECF No. 26, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/23/26 Page 1
of 3

2
First Objection. Plaintiff argues that “the ALJ violated 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c during the
evaluation of the evidence because he failed to properly consider . . . the consultative report of Dr.
Morgan” (Obj., ECF No. 25 at PageID.1567–1568). The Report and Recommendation specifically
addresses this topic, offering analysis and authorities indicating that Plaintiff is mistaken and that
the ALJ did expressly consider the evidence in question (R&R, ECF No. 24 at PageID.1558–1559,
citing Kornecky v. Commissioner of Social Security, 167 F. App’x 496, 508 (6th Cir. 2006)).
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. See Evans v. Ordiway, No. 2:24-CV-36, 2026 WL 309173, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 5,
2026) (citing Peacock v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:15-CV-572, 2016 WL 2997429, at *1 (W.D.
Mich. May 25, 2016)) (collecting cases); accord Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995))
(“Such duplication defeats the purpose of the Federal Magistrates Act[.]”). This objection fails.
Second Objection. Plaintiff argues that “the ALJ committed reversible error . . . because
he failed to properly consider . . . supportability and consistency” in connection with certain
medical evidence, including evidence offered by Drs. Malancharuvil and Jawor (Obj., ECF No. 25
at PageID.1568–1570). 	“[S]upportability relates to the extent to which a medical source has
articulated support for the medical source’s own opinion, while consistency relates to the
relationship between a medical source’s opinion and other evidence within the record.” Bigford
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:23-CV-585, 2024 WL 3292605, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 2, 2024),
R&R adopted, No. 1:23-CV-585, 2024 WL 3083251 (W.D. Mich. June 21, 2024). 	Again, the
Magistrate Judge addressed this argument in detail, and to the extent Plaintiff simply recycles the
analysis that he previously submitted, he has failed to raise a proper objection. See Evans, 2026
WL 309173 at *4; Peacock, 2016 WL 2997429 at *1 (collecting cases); Miller, 50 F.3d at 380.
Case 1:25-cv-00630-JMB-SJB ECF No. 26, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/23/26 Page 2
of 3

3
Additionally, “[w]hile Plaintiff may disagree with the result of the Magistrate Judge’s
determination,” 	his 	objection 	“reveals 	no 	factual 	or 	legal 	error” 	in 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation. See Cannon v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:23-CV-388, 2024 WL 1854223, at
*1 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 29, 2024). “Plaintiff’s argument simply amounts to yet another request that
the Court reweigh the evidence and reach a different conclusion, which is not a proper basis for
reversal.” Id. (citing Luukkonen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 653 F. App’x 393, 398 (6th Cir. 2016);
Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 347 (6th Cir. 1993) (“If it is supported by substantial evidence,
the [Commissioner’s] determination must stand regardless of whether the reviewing court would
resolve the issues of fact in dispute differently.”). This objection fails.
Third Objection. Plaintiff argues that “the ALJ committed reversible error by relying at
least in part upon Plaintiff’s daily living activities to reject his claim for benefits” (Obj., ECF No.
25 at PageID.1570–1571). Again, Plaintiff repeats arguments expressly considered and rejected
by the Report and Recommendation, with no serious attempt to identify error in the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis or citations to applicable authorities (see id.). 	“Such duplication defeats the
purpose of the Federal Magistrates Act[.]” Miller, 50 F.3d at 380. This objection also fails.
In sum, Plaintiff has failed to raise proper objections and has further failed to identify
factual or legal error in the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 25) are DENIED, the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 24) 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: June 23, 2026
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:25-cv-00630-JMB-SJB ECF No. 26, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/23/26 Page 3
of 3