Daniels v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of (TV1)

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court hereby ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the R&R [Doc. 21 ] and GRANTS IN PART plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 16 ] and DENIES defendant's motion for summary judgment [Doc. 19 ]. This case is hereby REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 2/29/16. (JBR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WILLIE G. DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

3:14 -CV-546-TAV-CCS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This Social Security appeal is before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation (the “R&R”) [Doc. 21] filed by United States Magistrate Judge C.
Clifford Shirley, Jr., on December 30, 2015. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Shirley
recommends that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 16] be granted in part
and that defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 19] be denied. Defendant filed
objections to the R&R [Doc. 22]. Plaintiff did not file a response to the objections, and
the time for doing so has expired. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1, 7.2.
I.

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

R&R to which specific objections are made 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 a de novo

review of specific objections, if the objections merely restate the party’s arguments raised
in the motion for summary judgment that were previously addressed by the magistrate
judge, the Court may deem the objections waived. VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d
934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004). “A general objection, or one that merely restates the
arguments previously presented is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the
part of the magistrate judge.

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.” Id. at
937. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has also explained that:
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
Defendant makes three objections to the R&R: (1) to the magistrate judge’s

finding that the ALJ must reweigh the testimony of Ms. Williams, plaintiff’s ex-wife; (2)
to the magistrate judge’s finding that the ALJ erred in failing to explicitly address Dr.
Blane’s opinion that plaintiff could only sit for two hours, stand for thirty minutes, and
walk for fifteen minutes at one time without interruption; and (3) to the magistrate
judge’s finding that the ALJ failed to provide a full discussion as to what extent, if any,
2

plaintiff’s non-exertional limitations affected his RFC [Doc. 22]. Upon review of the
record, the Court finds that these objections do “nothing more than state a disagreement
with [the magistrate judge’s] suggested resolution.” See VanDiver, 304 F. Supp. 2d at
937. Accordingly, de novo review of those arguments would make the original referral to
the magistrate judge useless and would waste judicial resources. See Howard, 932 F.2d
at 509. The Court, therefore, does not consider defendant’s arguments to be specific
objections to the R&R and the Court will treat any objections as having been waived.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, and upon de novo review of the record in this case,

the Court hereby ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the R&R [Doc. 21] and GRANTS IN PART
plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 16] and DENIES defendant’s motion for
summary judgment [Doc. 19]. This case is hereby REMANDED for further proceedings
consistent with the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3