Perez v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Filing 28

ORDER ACCEPTING 25 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Perez's Objection is hereby OVERRULED. Judge Cureton's Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED, the Social Security Commissioner's final decision is AFFIRMED, and this action is DISMISSED. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 9/19/2022) (mmw)

Case 4:21-cv-00594-P Document 28 Filed 09/19/22

Page 1 of 2 PageID 1271

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
Jenny Ayala Perez,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 4:21-cv-0594-P

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMISSIONER,
Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton made Findings,
Conclusions, and a Recommendation (“FCR”) in this case. ECF No. 25.
The FCR included the finding and conclusion that the Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”) harmlessly erred by failing to properly assess the
opinions of one of Plaintiff Jenny Ayala Perez’s treating physicians, Dr.
Jordan Sudberg. Perez timely objected to Judge Cureton’s
recommendation that this Court find the ALJ’s error harmless. ECF No.
27 at 1–2. Having reviewed de novo the objected-to parts of Judge
Cureton’s FCR, the Court concludes that the objection is meritless, so it
is overruled. The FCR is adopted in full, and the ALJ’s decision is
affirmed.
Perez’s arguments are essentially the same as those she presented to
Judge Cureton. Compare ECF Nos. 22 at 17–21 and 24 at 3–5 with ECF
No. 27 at 2–3.1 Accordingly, Judge Cureton has already considered these
arguments, and the Court is “not obligated to address objections [which
are merely recitations of the identical arguments made before the

1Also,

the Commissioner’s responsive brief, to which Perez replied,
contained a harm analysis much like Judge Cureton’s. See ECF No. 23 at 5–
7.

Case 4:21-cv-00594-P Document 28 Filed 09/19/22

Page 2 of 2 PageID 1272

magistrate judge] because . . . such objections undermine the purpose of
the Federal Magistrate’s Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, which serves to reduce
duplicative work and conserve judicial resources.” Owens v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., 1:13-47, 2013 WL 1304470, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2013)
(citing Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509
(6th Cir. 1991); Nickelson v. Warden, No. 1:11-cv-334, 2012 WL 700827,
at *4 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 1, 2012)); see also Camardo v. Gen. Motors HourlyRate Emps. Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 382 (W.D. N.Y. 1992)
(holding that recitations of nearly identical arguments are insufficient
as objections and constitute an improper “second bite at the apple”).
Nevertheless, the District Judge reviewed Plaintiff’s objection in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). And having reviewed de novo the
FCR, record, and objection, the undersigned District Judge determines
that the Findings and Conclusions of Magistrate Judge Cureton are
correct. Accordingly, Perez’s Objection is hereby OVERRULED. Judge
Cureton’s Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED, the Social Security
Commissioner’s final decision is AFFIRMED, and this action is
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED on this 19th day of September 2022.

2