Armistead v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 14

JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER and Plaintiffs case is dismissed with prejudice and adopting the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as set forth in the 12 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on November 15, 2012. (sh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
TRAVIS D. ARMISTEAD
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 3:11-CV-03129

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner
Social Security Administration

DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) filed on October
3, 2012, 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. 13).
Plaintiff objects “to the findings that Plaintiff did not suffer from an impairment which met
or was equal to the Listings. Further the Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate’s finding that the ALJ
properly evaluated Plaintiff’s RFC.” (Doc. 13). Plaintiff sets forth no basis for his objections, nor
does Plaintiff direct the undersigned to any specific portions of the Report and Recommendation that
he finds objectionable. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are, therefore, lacking any minimal
level of specificity required to trigger a de novo review of the record in this case. Belk v. Purkett,
15 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. ) (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 alleged errors if insufficiently directed by the
parties).
Furthermore, in his appeal brief, Plaintiff argued two bases for error on the part of the ALJ:
(1) that the ALJ did not formulate a proper hypothetical questions to the vocational expert and (2)
that the ALJ erroneously substituted his opinion for that of the consulting physician. (Doc. 8). The

Report and Recommendation addresses both contentions at length. It does not appear that the
Magistrate made the specific findings objected to by Plaintiff. Rather, the Magistrate concluded, in
considering the two contentions raised by Plaintiff, that the ALJ did not err in formulating a
hypothetical or in his consideration of the consulting physician’s opinion, and that the decision of
the ALJ was supported by substantial evidence on the record. Plaintiff’s objections, therefore,
appear to raise different and far broader issues than were originally presented to the Magistrate. As
a result, even if the undersigned were to desire to conduct a de novo review, it would be impossible
to know where to begin.
The Court finds the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate to be well-reasoned, and
Plaintiff’s objections offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the Report and
Recommendation.
Therefore, having reviewed this case, and being well and sufficiently advised, the Court finds
that the Report and Recommendation is proper and should be and hereby is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY. Accordingly, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of November, 2012.

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

-2-