Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

ORDER that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 10 is DENIED and the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment 12 is GRANTED. The Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the Report and Recommendation 14 , the Commissioner's decision in this case denying plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits is AFFIRMED and this case is DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 5/22/12. (ABF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
RONDA J. JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

3:11-CV-200
(VARLAN/GUYTON)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This Social Security appeal is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
[Doc. 14] filed by United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton on May 11, 2012. In the
Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Guyton found that the Commissioner’s
decision was supported by substantial evidence and recommended that plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment [Doc. 10] be denied and that the Commissioner’s motion for summary
judgment [Doc. 12] be granted.
Plaintiff filed a document entitled Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation [Doc. 15]. However, for the reasons discussed below, the
Court determines that plaintiff does not raise specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation, and therefore, plaintiff’s arguments will not be treated as such.
I.

Standard of Review
The Court must conduct a de novo review of portions of the magistrate judge’s R&R

to which a party’s specific objections unless the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or

general. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of
Teachers, Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987); Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636
(6th Cir. 1986). Although the Court is required to engage in de novo review of specific
objections, if the objections merely restate the party’s arguments raised in the motion for
summary judgment and addressed by the magistrate judge, the Court may deem the
objections waived. See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d 934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004)
(“An ‘objection’ that . . . simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an
objection as that term is used in this context.”). The Sixth Circuit of the United States Court
of Appeals has explained,
A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate’s report has the
same effects as would a failure to object. The district court's attention
is not focused on any specific issues for review, thereby making the
initial reference to the magistrate useless. The functions of the district
court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the district
court perform identical tasks. This duplication of time and effort wastes
judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the
purposes of the Magistrates Act.
Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
II.

Analysis
Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc.

15] repeats arguments she made in her memorandum in support of her motion for summary
judgement [Doc. 10]. Her arguments are that the ALJ failed to obtain a medical opinion
regarding the effect of plaintiff’s severe mental impairments on her ability to work, that the
ALJ was not qualified to make a medical judgment about how plaintiff’s mental impairments

2

would effect her ability to work, that no medical evidence exists to support the ALJ’s
conclusion and therefore the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) was unsupported
by substantial evidence, and because the ALJ had a duty to inquire further because plaintiff
alleged and was treated for psychiatric-related problems [Id., pp. 8-14]. These are simply
summaries of the same arguments considered by Magistrate Judge Guyton in the Report and
Recommendation. It follows that this Court’s de novo review of plaintiff’s arguments would
make the original referral to the magistrate judge useless and would waste judicial resources.
See Howard, 932 F.2d at 509.
Accordingly, because the Court does not consider plaintiff’s arguments to be specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation, it will not engage in de novo review. Because
no proper objections were timely filed, the Court will treat any objections as having been
waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). As noted, in the Report and
Recommendation Magistrate Judge Guyton found no error in the ALJ’s decision not to obtain
a consultative mental examination and that there was substantial evidence to support the
Commissioner’s decision. The Court has carefully reviewed this matter, including the
underlying pleadings [Docs. 10, 11, 12, 13], and is in agreement with Magistrate Judge
Guyton’s recommendations, which the Court adopts and incorporates into its ruling.
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 10] is DENIED and the

Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 12] is GRANTED. The Court
ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 14], the Commissioner’s
3

decision in this case denying plaintiff’s applications for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income benefits is AFFIRMED and this case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ENTERED AS A JUDGMENT
s/ Debra C. Poplin
CLERK OF COURT

4