ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [18]; GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [17]; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [15]; OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION [21]

ARTHUR J. TARNOW, Senior District Judge.

On January 30, 2017 the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) [18], recommending that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [17] be granted and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [15] be denied. Defendant filed objections on February 14, 2017 [21] and Plaintiff responded to the objections on February 21, 2017 [22]. For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation [18]. Plaintiff's objections [21] are overruled. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [15] is DENIED.

This Court reviews objections to an R&R on a dispositive motion de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). Judicial review of a decision by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") is limited to determining whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the ALJ employed the proper legal standards. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). The ALJ's factual findings "are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence." Maziarz v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 837 F.2d 240, 243 (6th Cir. 1987). "Substantial evidence is defined as 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." Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007). The substantial evidence standard "does not permit a selective reading of the record," as the reviewing court's assessment of the evidence supporting the ALJ's findings "must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight." Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383, 388 (6th Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation [21] merely refer back to the substance of her Motion for Summary Judgment [21]. These arguments were already briefed and considered by the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [17] and the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation [18]. Objections are meant to identify specific errors in the Magistrate's report and not restate previous arguments already considered. Davis v. Caruso, No. 07-10115, 2008 WL 540818, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 25, 2008) (denying an objection to an R&R where Plaintiff "merely rehashe[d] his arguments."). Additionally, "the Court is not obligated to address an objection made in this form, because the objection failed to identify the specific errors the MJ's recommendations." Hogston v. Colvin, No. 14-14458, 2016 WL 878329, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 8, 2016); see also Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). As Plaintiff has not filed specific written objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not and will not analyze his objections and the Objections [21] are OVERRULED.

The Court having reviewed the record, the Report and Recommendation [18] Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby ADOPTED and entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation [18] is ADOPTED and entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections [21] are OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [15] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.