Woods v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
20
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Plaintiff's objection to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker is overruled. Judge Parker's Report and Recommendation is adopted, in full. The Commissioner's decision is affirmed. re 17 Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 8/26/2019. (S,AL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Mary Woods,
Case No. 3:18-cv-1070
Plaintiff
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant
Before me is the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of Magistrate Judge Thomas M.
Parker. (Doc. No. 17). Judge Parker recommends I affirm the final decision of Defendant
Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff Mary Woods’s applications for Disability
Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. (Id.). Woods timely filed objections to the R
& R, (Doc. No. 18), and the Commissioner filed a response, (Doc. No. 19).
A district court must conduct a de novo review of “any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject or modify the
recommended disposition, receive further evidence, or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
A general objection that does not “address specific concerns with the magistrate's report”
will not suffice. Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (“[A] party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis added).
In this case, Woods raises one objection not to Judge Parker’s R & R, but the ALJ’s decision
alone. (Doc. No. 18). Because Woods “simply objected to the report and recommendation and
referred to [one] issue[ ] in the case” rather than “specifically [ ] address the findings of the
magistrate,” her general objection does not amount to a legitimate appeal of the R & R. Miller v.
Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995); see also, e.g., Andres v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 733 F. App’x 241,
244 (6th Cir. 2018) (“Because Andres failed to pinpoint the magistrate judge’s alleged errors, he has
forfeited his arguments on appeal.”); King v. Caruso, 542 F. Supp. 2d 703, 706 (E.D. Mich. 2008)
(“[I]f the ‘objection’ merely states a disagreement with the magistrate’s suggested resolution or
summarizes what was brought before the magistrate, it is not an objection for the purposes of this
review.”).
On independent review of the R & R, I conclude Judge Parker’s recommendation and
findings are supported by the relevant facts and applicable law. Therefore, Woods’s objection is
overruled, and Judge Parker’s R & R is adopted, in full.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?