Morrison v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 18

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepts 13 Report and Recommendation. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further administrative action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/17/2021. (gpre, )

8:19-cv-02947-JMC

Date Filed 02/17/21

Entry Number 18

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Ricky Morrison,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Andrew Saul,
)
Commission of Social Security
)
Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 8:19-cv-02947-JMC
ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) filed on August 14, 2020. (ECF No. 13.) The Report addresses
Plaintiff Ricky Morrison’s (“Plaintiff”) claim for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and
supplemental security income (“SSI”) and recommends that the court reverse the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security Administration (“the Commissioner”) and remand the action for
further administrative proceedings. (Id. at 1.) For the reasons stated herein, the court ACCEPTS
the Report, REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner, and REMANDS the action for further
administrative proceedings.
I.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards which this court incorporates
herein without a full recitation. (ECF No. 13.) As brief background, Plaintiff filed applications
for DIB and SSI in May 2016. (Id. at 2.) Both applications were denied initially and on
reconsideration. (Id.)
After a hearing was held on June 14, 2018, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) determined
on October 15, 2018 that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light
1

8:19-cv-02947-JMC

Date Filed 02/17/21

Entry Number 18

Page 2 of 5

work as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b), 416.967(b). (Id. at 3.) As a result, the ALJ
determined that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act (“the Act”). (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff’s request for the Appeals Council (“the Council”) to review the ALJ’s decision
was later denied.

(Id. at 3.)

Thus, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the

Commissioner. Moody v. Chater, No. 95–1066, 1995 WL 627714, at *1 (4th Cir. Oct. 26, 1995)
(stating that an ALJ’s decision was the final decision of the Commissioner when the Council
denied a request for review); Higginbotham v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 332, 336 (5th Cir. 2005)
(holding that the Commissioner’s “final decision” includes when the Council denies a request for
review). Plaintiff filed the instant action on October 17, 2019. (ECF No. 1.)
In the Report, the Magistrate Judge concluded that it is unclear whether the ALJ considered
Plaintiff’s knee limitations. (ECF No. 13 at 20.) Although the Magistrate Judge acknowledged
that some of the evidence discussed in the ALJ’s decision could theoretically be relevant to an
analysis of Plaintiff’s knee limitations, the Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ failed to “build a
logical bridge” between Plaintiff’s complaints regarding his knee and the limitations included in
the RFC determination. (Id. (citing Monroe v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 176, 187 (4th Cir. 2016)).
Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined that it was “not clear whether the ALJ believed he
was considering the knee problem or was merely discussing the evidence in the context of
Plaintiff’s back issues” and that the “ALJ does not explain [or] discuss how his RFC accounts for
those limitations.” (Id.) On this basis, the Report ultimately recommended that the court reverse
the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Id. at 21.)
The parties were apprised of their opportunity to file specific objections to the Report on
August 14, 2020. (Id.) On August 25, 2020, the Commissioner filed an Objection to the Report.

2

8:19-cv-02947-JMC

Date Filed 02/17/21

Entry Number 18

Page 3 of 5

(ECF No. 14 at 4.) Plaintiff replied to the Commissioner’s Objection on September 8, 2020. (ECF
No. 16.)
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge only makes a

recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no presumptive weight. See Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final determination remains
with the court. Id. at 271. As such, the court is charged with making de novo determinations of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Thus, the court may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Act provides that “[t]he findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact,
if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). While the
court is free to conduct a de novo review of the Report, the court’s review of the Commissioner’s
final decision is “limited to determining whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence
and whether the correct law was applied.” Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2002)
(citing Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990); Preston v. Heckler, 769 F.2d 988,
990 (4th Cir. 1985)). “Substantial evidence has been defined innumerable times as more than a
scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541, 543 (4th Cir. 1964).
When assessing whether the ALJ possessed substantial evidence, the court may not “re-weigh
conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the
[Commissioner].” Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Craig v. Chater,

3

8:19-cv-02947-JMC

Date Filed 02/17/21

Entry Number 18

Page 4 of 5

76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996)). As such, the court is tasked with a “specific and narrow” review
under the Act. Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1972).
III.

ANALYSIS

The Commissioner contends that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence
because “the ALJ’s decision unambiguously evidences his consideration of the evidence related
to Plaintiff’s knee.” (ECF No. 14 at 1.) Plaintiff counters that “defense counsel offers no
additional argument beyond those already offered and makes no showing of error by the Magistrate
Judge.” (ECF No. 16 at 4.)
“The purpose of magistrate review is to conserve judicial resources.” Nichols v. Colvin,
100 F. Supp. 3d 487, 497 (E.D. Va. 2015). Generally, a party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s
report must be “specific and particularized” in order to facilitate review by a district court. United
States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007). “An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than
state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been
presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.” Aldrich v. Bock, 327
F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Thus, a de novo review is unnecessary for a district court
to undertake when a party seeks to rehash general arguments that were already addressed in a
magistrate judge’s report. See Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982); Christy S.
o/b/o A.S. v. Saul, No. 7:18-CV-00191, 2019 WL 4306978, at *1 (W.D. Va. Sept. 11, 2019)
(restating arguments “does not constitute an objection for the purposes of district court review”)
(citation and internal marks omitted).
Here, the court concludes that the Commissioner’s Objection restates an argument
adequately addressed by the Report. (See ECF No. 13 at 15-20.) Moreover, the Commissioner’s
Objection substantively mirrors the arguments raised in prior briefing.

4

Similarly to the

8:19-cv-02947-JMC

Date Filed 02/17/21

Entry Number 18

Page 5 of 5

Commissioner’s Objection, the Commissioner’s Brief argues that substantial evidence supports
the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s impairments because “the ALJ assessed the evidence related to
Plaintiff’s knee.” (ECF No. 11 at 11,14.)
A de novo review is thus unnecessary because Plaintiff has “failed to guide the [c]ourt
towards specific issues needing resolution....” Nichols, 100 F. Supp. 3d at 498 (holding that a
claimant failed to raise specific objections when he repeated arguments raised in his initial brief).
The court declines to hear the Commissioner’s reused arguments. Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47. The
court finds the Report adequately addresses the Commissioner’s Objection, is well-reasoned, and
properly analyzes the rehashed issues from the Commissioner. See Fray v. Berryhill, No. 6:162916-TMC, 2018 WL 1224687, at *5 (D.S.C. Mar. 9, 2018) (adopting a Magistrate Judge’s report
in which the court concurred “with both the reasoning and the result”). Therefore, the court adopts
the Report herein and overrules the Commissioner’s Objection.
IV.

CONCLUSION

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court ACCEPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) and incorporates it herein.
Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration is REVERSED
and this case is REMANDED for further administrative action pursuant to sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
February 17, 2021
Columbia, South Carolina

5