Jennifer Lenise Stephenson v. Commissioner of Social Security

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 22a0405n.06
No. 22-1260
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
JENNIFER LENISE STEPHENSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
MICHIGAN
OPINION
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; STRANCH and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. In this social security appeal, Plaintiff Jennifer
Stephenson challenges the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability
benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found Stephenson was not disabled within the
meaning of the Social Security Act because a person with her residual functional capacity could
perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy. Stephenson sought judicial
review, and the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that the
ALJ’s decision be affirmed because it was supported by substantial evidence. The district court
denied Stephenson’s objections to this Report, and approved and adopted the magistrate’s Report
and Recommendation as the opinion of the court.
On appeal, Stephenson raises the same arguments that she presented before the Magistrate
Judge and district court: that her “moderate” mental limitations were not accounted for in the ALJ’s

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 22-1260, Stephenson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
-2-
determination of her residual functional capacity, and that the ALJ’s hypothetical question to the
vocational expert did not accurately portray her impairments.
We review district court decisions regarding social security benefits determinations de
novo. Gentry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708, 722 (6th Cir. 2014). We must affirm the
ALJ’s decision if it “is supported by substantial evidence and was made pursuant to proper legal
standards.” Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007). Substantial
evidence means “more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting
Cutlip v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 25 F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994)). When deciding
whether substantial evidence supports the decision, “it is not necessary that this court agree with
the Commissioner’s finding, as long as it is substantially supported in the record.” Id. In social
security cases, “we do not try the case de novo, resolve conflicts in evidence, or decide questions
of credibility.” Ulman v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 693 F.3d 709, 713 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Bass
v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 2007)).
After considering the record and the parties’ briefs, we find that the district court’s opinion
of March 3, 2022—which incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation—
sufficiently articulates the relevant facts, governing law, and the reasoning underlying its decision.
Issuing a full opinion would be duplicative and serve no other purpose. We therefore AFFIRM
the judgment and adopt the district court’s decision as the opinion of this court.

-- 2 of 2 --