Davis v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in their entirety. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on December 12, 2013. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
TYLITHA DAVIS
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 2:12-CV-02228

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) filed on November
1, 2013, by the Honorable Erin L. Setser, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District
of Arkansas. Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 16).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) allows a party to file objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. That rule requires the objections to be
“specific.” In this case, Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate’s 24-page report, are not set forth
with any minimal level of specificity so as to enable the Court to engage in an appropriate de novo
review of the voluminous record in this case. See Belk v. Purkett, 15 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 1994) (while
emphasizing the necessity of de novo review, indicating that lack of specificity may be an
appropriate basis for denying de novo review in cases involving extensive records, which would
make it difficult to focus upon any alleged errors if insufficiently directed by the parties); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.” (emphasis added)). Rather, Plaintiff’s objections
are general restatements of the subheadings of Plaintiff’s arguments contained in her original appeal
brief, with no reference to any portions of the magistrate’s report to which Plaintiff specifically
objects.

Because Plaintiff’s objections are so general as to not trigger de novo review, the Court has
instead reviewed the Magistrate’s report for clear error. See Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795
(8th Cir. 1996) (noting that when no objections are filed and the time for filing objections has
expired, the district court should review findings of the magistrate for clear error). Having
conducted such review, the Court finds that the magistrate’s findings contain no clear error and the
recommendation should be accepted.
The Court therefore concludes that the findings and recommendations should be, and hereby
are, approved and adopted as this Court’s findings in all respects in their entirety. Judgment will be
entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of December, 2013.

s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-