Scott v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 18

ORDER adopting re 16 as this Court's findings in all respects in their entirety the Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on March 18, 2014. (sh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
CRYSTAL A. SCOTT
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 2:13-CV-02050

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) filed on January 27,
2014, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas. Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 17). No response to the objections
has been filed.
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 22-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)); see also Goney v. Clark, 749
F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984) (“providing a complete de novo determination where only a general
objection to the report is offered would undermine the efficiency the magistrate system was meant

to contribute to the judicial process”). 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. The Magistrate addressed
all of Plaintiff’s general arguments in his report and recommendation, and Plaintiff does not identify
any portion of the Magistrate’s analysis that she alleges to be in error. Plaintiff likewise does not
cite to any portion of the record or relevant case law that would support her position that the Court
should not adopt the report and recommendation of the Magistrate.
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 18th day of March, 2014.

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

-2-