Riddick v. Astrue

Filing 17

FINAL ORDER adopting and approving the findings and recommendations set forth in 14 Report and Recommendations; AFFIRMING the final decision of the Commissioner; GRANTING 11 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Carolyn W. Colvin; DENYING 9 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by George Nathaniel Riddick, Jr; DIRECTING Clerk to enter judgment for the defendant. Signed by Chief District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith on 3/21/13. (arou)

FiLED
UNITED

STATES DISTRICT

COURT

MAR 2 1 2013

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Norfolk

Division
CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT

NORFOLK, VA

GEORGE NATHANIEL RIDDICK,

JR.,

Plaintiff,
ACTION NO.

v.

CAROLYN W.

2:12cv34

COLVIN,

Acting Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.

FINAL

ORDER

Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C.

§§ 405

(g)

and

1383(c)(3)

seeking judicial review of the decision of the Commis

sioner

the

of

Social

Security

Administration

("Commissioner")

denying plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits ("DIB")
and supplemental security income ("SSI"), under the Social Security
Act.

On

August

14,

2012,

this

matter

was

referred

to

a

United

States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure for report and recommendation.
judge

was

filed

on

February

28,

2013,

decision of the Commissioner be affirmed.

Report of the magistrate
recommending

that

the

By copy of the report,

each party was advised of the right to file written objections to

the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The

court received Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommenda

tion of the Magistrate Judge on March 12, 2013,

and Defendant's

Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation was filed on March 13,

The court,

2013.

having examined the objections to the Magistrate

Judge's Report and having made de novo findings'- with respect to
the

portions

objected

to,

does

hereby

adopt

and

approve

the

findings and recommendations set forth in the Report of the United
States Magistrate Judge filed February 28, 2013.

Accordingly, the

final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; defendant's Motion

for Summary Judgment
Judgment

is DENIED,

is GRANTED;
and

plaintiff's Motion for Summary

the Clerk shall enter judgment for the

defendant.

The parties may appeal from the judgment entered pursuant to
this

Final

Order by filing a written

Clerk of this court,

notice of appeal

United States Courthouse,

with

the

600 Granby Street,

1 The defendant argues that the plaintiff's Objections repeat
"the same arguments asserted ... in his motion for summary
judgment," and, therefore, do not require de novo review by this
court. Resp. at 1-2. For support, the defendant cites only nonbinding precedent from the Southern District of New York and the
District of Puerto Rico.
Id. at 2. Although the plaintiff's
arguments do, indeed, concern some of the same issues presented
earlier, the Objections are neither "perfunctory" nor a simple
"rehash" of the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Cf.
Edwards v.
Fischer, 414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 347 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); Gonzalez-Ramos
v. Emoresas Berrios, Inc., 360 F. Supp. 2d 373, 376 (D.P.R. 2005).
Rather,
the plaintiff presents a reasoned,
albeit ultimately
unpersuasive, objection to Judge Leonard's Report. Accordingly, the
court

conducted

636(b)(1)

a

de

novo

review

and Rule 72(b)(3).

in

accordance

with

28

U.S.C.

§

Norfolk,

Virginia 23510,

within sixty

(60) days

from the date of

entry of such judgment.
The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to counsel for

the parties.

_____

/s/

kebecca Beach Smith

United States District Judge "H^~
REBECCA
CHIEF

Norfolk,

March

Virginia

g^\ , 2013

BEACH

UNITED

SMITH
STATES

DISTRICT

JUDGE