Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

OPINION and ORDER adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in 18 Report and Recommendations; denying 13 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Joyce Williams; granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Commissioner of Social Security. Signed by District Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr. and filed on 2/2/10. (mwin, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FILED
FEB -2 2010
CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COUttT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Norfolk Division

JOYCE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

NOSfOLK. VA

No. 2:09cv60

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

Joyce Williams ("Plaintiff' or "Claimant") brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§

405(g) and 1383(c)(3). Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's ("Defendant" or "Commissioner") August 23,2007 decision denying Plaintiffs claim for
disability insurance benefits ("DIB"). See Doc. 1.

PlaintiffmovedforsummaryjudgmentonMay27,2009. Doc. 13. Defendant moved for
summary judgment on June 26, 2009. Doc. 15. The motions and attendant pleadings were

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and (C). Doc. 8. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on November 23, 2009. Doc. 18. Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation on December 3,2009. Doc.

19. Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff s objection on December 14, 2009. Doc 20. The
matter is therefore mature for the Court's review.

However, inasmuch as Plaintiffs objection is merely a general objection to the entirety of

the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff is not entitled to this Court's de

novo review. Having found no clear error on the face of the record, the Court thus adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendations and hereby DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13) and GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15). I. Procedural History and Factual Background1

Plaintiff filed an application with the Social Security Administration to establish a period

of disability and an award of disability insurance benefits ("DIB") on December 21,2005. hi her
application, Plaintiff alleged that she became disabled on March 1, 2005 because of breast cancer,
degenerative disk disease, neuropathy, headaches, carpal tunnel syndrome, hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease, anemia, pain, depression, anxiety, and cardiovascular disease. R. at 95-99,156,162. Plaintiffs applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. Plaintiff subsequently filed a request for a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"), and such a hearing was conducted on June 25, 2007. At this hearing, Plaintiff was represented by counsel and testified.

On August 23, 2007, the ALJ denied Plaintiffs claim for DIB. R. at 18-34. On September 7, 2007, Plaintiff filed a request for review of the ALJ's decision by the Appeals Council of the Office of Disability Adjudication & Review of the Social Security Administration ("Appeals Council"). R. at 16-17. The Appeals Council, however, denied plaintiffs request on December 4, 2008, thereby rendering the decision of the ALJ the final decision of the

1 This section does not constitute the complete procedural and factual history, but only
those proceedings and facts relevant to the present objections. The Court accepts, as facts, the

procedural history and factual background set forth by the Magistrate Judge in his Report and Recommendation, insofar as they are not objected to by Plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(l);
Owens ex rel. Metcalf v. Barnhart. 444 F. Supp. 2d 485, 488 (D.S.C. 2006).
-2-

Commissioner. R. at 1-5.

Plaintiff filed the present action on February 6,2009, seeking judicial review of the final

decision of the Commissioner. Doc. 1. The case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for the
purpose of preparing a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and (C)

and Local Rule 72. Doc. 8. Plaintiff filed her motion for summary judgment and a memorandum
in support thereof on May 27, 2009. Docs. 13-14. In her motion, Plaintiff prayed that the Court

reverse the decision of the ALJ or, in the alternative, vacate the decision and remand the case for
further proceedings. Doc. 14 at 24. Defendant then filed a motion for summary judgment and a memorandum in support thereof on June 26, 2009, requesting that the Court affirm the decision of

the ALJ. Docs. 15-16. On July 6,2009, Plaintiff filed a response in support of her motion for
summary judgment. Doc. 17.

On November 23,2009, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs motion for
summary judgment be denied and that Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted. Doc. 18 at 30. Plaintifffiled a timely objection on December 3, 2009. Doc. 19. Defendant filed a
response to Plaintiffs objection on December 14,2009. Doc 20.
II. Standard of Review

A. Review of the Commissioner's Final Decision

The role of the Court in the administrative scheme established by the Social Security Act
(the "Act") is a limited one. The Court's review is restricted to a determination concerning

whether there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's conclusion that the plaintiff failed to
meet the conditions for entitlement pursuant to the Act. See Craig v. Chater. 76 F.3d 585,589

(4th Cir.1996). "Substantial evidence" is "more than a mere scintilla" of evidence, but only such

-3-

evidence "as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales. 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) ^quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB. 305 U.S. 197, 229
(1938)).

In reviewing for substantial evidence, the Court does not undertake to re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Havs v. Sullivan. 907 F.2d 1453,1456 (4th Cir. 1990); Craig. 76 F.3d at 589.

Rather, "[w]here conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether the claimant
is disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the Commissioner (or the [Commissioner's] designate, the AU)." Craig. 76 F.3d at 589. The denial of benefits will be reversed only if no reasonable mind could accept the record as adequate to support the

determination. Richardson. 402 U.S. at 401. If substantial evidence exists for the ALJ's findings,
and those findings were reached through application of the correct legal standard, the conclusion must be affirmed. Craig. 76 F.3d at 589; Laws v. Celebrezze. 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966).
B. Review of the Report and Recommendation

The court reviews de novo any portion of the Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation to which specific written objection has been made. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see

also 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(l). Any part of the Magistrate Judge's disposition that has not been properly objected to is reviewed for, at most, clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note (noting that "[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation").

-4-

III. Analysis

The document filed by Plaintiffs counsel captioned "Plaintiffs Objections to the Report

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge" is, in actuality, practically a verbatim copy of the argument section of Plaintiff s previously-filed summary judgment brief. Compare Doc. 14 with
Doc. 19. Plaintiff has essentially reformatted her summary judgment brief and reiterated the prior arguments contained therein with a few inconsequential revisions. Plaintiff only makes scarce references to the Report and Recommendation and does not clearly indicate the specific portions

to which she objects.2 Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff offers objections, they are general
objections to the entirety of the Report and Recommendation.

In order to obtain a de novo determination of a magistrate judge's findings, the objecting party must file "specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." FED.

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (emphasis added). The district court can then "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C) (emphasis added).

The Fourth Circuit has indicated that a general objection, such as the one offered by Plaintiff in this case, thus fails to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). See United States v. Mideette. 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir.
2007) (holding that "Section 636(b)(l) does not countenance a form of generalized objection to
cover all issues addressed by the magistrate judge; it contemplates that a party's objection to a

2 The majority of the references to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

are simply one-sentence assertions that the Magistrate Judge agreed with the ALJ's findings. See, e.g.. Doc. 19 at 10,13. These references are surrounded, however, by unmodified text lifted
from the prior summary judgment brief. See id.
-5-

magistrate judge's report be specific and particularized

"); Page v. Lee. 337 F.3d 411,417 n.3

(4th Cir. 2003) (noting that a "petitioner's failure to object to the magistrate judge's

recommendation with the specificity required by [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)] is,
standing alone, a sufficient basis upon which to affirm the judgment of the district court" on appeal). Accordingly, "a general objection to the entirety of the magistrate's report has the same

effects as would a failure to object." Venev v. Astrue. 539 F. Supp. 2d 841, 845 (W.D. Va. 2008)

(citations omitted). Where a party files a general objection, the court thus only needs to satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See FED. R. Crv. P. 72 advisory
committee's note (noting that "[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation"). It is evident in this case that Plaintiff, unsatisfied by the findings and recommendations

contained within the Magistrate Judge's report, attempted to seek re-argument and reconsideration
of her entire case under the guise of "objections." Plaintiff has failed, however, to object with specificity. The issues that Plaintiff raises in her general objections, moreover, have already been
addressed by the Magistrate Judge when they were before him in Plaintiffs summary judgment
brief. The Court is wary of granting Plaintiff a second bite at the apple under such circumstances inasmuch as "[allowing a litigant to obtain de novo review of her entire case by merely reformatting an earlier brief as an objection makes the initial reference to the magistrate judge

useless." Venev. 539 F. Supp. 2d at 846 (citation omitted). Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has
explained,

To conclude otherwise would defeat the purpose of requiring objections. We would be permitting a party to appeal any issue that was before the magistrate judge, regardless of the nature and scope of objections made to the magistrate

-6-

judge's report. Either the district court would then have to review every issue in the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations or courts of
appeals would be required to review issues that the district court never

considered. In either case, judicial resources would be wasted and the district court's effectiveness based on help from magistrate judges would be
undermined.

Mideette. 478 F.3d at 622. For this reason, in an effort to conserve judicial resources and avert

duplication of tasks, the Court will not grant Plaintiff an opportunity to re-argue every issue that
was before the Magistrate Judge.

Inasmuch as Plaintiffs objection was, at most, a general objection, no portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is subject to de novo review. See Veney, 539 F. Supp. 2d at 846 (reaching this same conclusion on similar facts). The Court therefore reviews the

Magistrate Judge's Report and the face of the record for clear error and FINDS that there has been
no such error.
IV. Conclusion

Therefore, having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and the face of the record for
clear error, and finding none, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendations.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13), and
GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15).

The Clerk is REQUESTED to send a copy of this order to all counsel of record.
It is so ORDERED.

/s/

Henry Coke Morgan, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
HENRY COKE MORGAN, JR.

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-7-

Norfolk, Virginia February 3., 2010

-8-