Saunders v. Kijakazi

Filing 30

OPINION AND ORDER denying 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part 24 Motion for Summary Judgment; Overruling 28 Objections to Report and Recommendation and 27 Report and Recommendations are accepted and adopted. The decision of the Commissioner is Affirmed. Signed by District Judge Robert S. Ballou on 09/24/2024. (sln)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
CHRISTY S.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARTIN O’MALLEY,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

September 24, 2024

Civil Action No: 7:23-cv-34

OPINION AND ORDER
This social security disability appeal was referred to the Honorable C. Kailani Memmer,
United States Magistrate Judge, for proposed findings of fact and a recommended disposition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation
(“R&R”) on August 5, 2024, recommending that this court affirm the Commissioner’s final
decision. Dkt. 27. Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R and this matter is now ripe for
consideration. I overrule Plaintiff’s objections, adopt the magistrate judge’s R&R in its entirety,
and affirm the Commissioner’s final decision.
I.

BACKGROUND

The court adopts the recitation of facts and procedural background as set forth in the R&R.
II.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review
Where, as here, a matter has been referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1), the court reviews de novo the portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which a timely objection has been made. Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454,

460 (4th Cir. 2023); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). For an objection to
trigger de novo review, an objecting party “must object to the finding or recommendation on that
issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for
the objection.” United States v. Midgette, 478, F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). “If a litigant objects
only generally, the district court reviews the magistrate’s recommendation for clear error only.”
Elijah, 66 F.4th at 460 (citing Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005)). “[O]bjections need not be novel to be sufficiently specific.” Id. In fact, district
courts are “not required to consider new arguments posed in objections to the magistrate’s
recommendation.” Id. at n. 3 (citation omitted).
In the absence of objections, the district court reviews the R&R for clear error and is not
required to explain its reasoning for adopting the report. Farmer v. McBride, 177 F. App’x 327,
331 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983)); Diamond, 416
F.3d at 315. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations in the R&R. Id.
When reviewing the decision of an ALJ, the court must uphold the factual findings and
final decision of the Commissioner if they are supported by substantial evidence and were
reached through application of the correct legal standard. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g); Biestek v.
Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1152 (2019). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; it consists of more than a
mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a preponderance.” Craig v. Chater, 76
F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996) (internal citations and alterations omitted); see also Biestek, 139 S.
Ct. at 1154 (emphasizing that the standard for substantial evidence “is not high”). “In reviewing
for substantial evidence, [the court should not] undertake to re-weigh conflicting evidence, make

2

credibility determinations, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the [Commissioner].” Mastro v.
Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d at 589). However, a
reviewing court should not “reflexively rubber-stamp an ALJ’s findings,” Lewis v. Berryhill, 858
F.3d 858, 870 (4th Cir. 2017).
B. Analysis
Plaintiff objects to the following aspects of the R&R:
1) The R&R erred by asserting that plaintiff merely submitted conclusory statements
without facts or arguments as to why the ALJ’s findings regarding A.S.’s functioning
in the domain of Caring for Himself is not supported by substantial evidence.
2) The R&R erred in concluding that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion
that A.S. has less than marked limitations in the domain of Caring for Himself.
3) The R&R erred by ignoring significant parental and other adult support given to A.S.
to complete tasks such as bathing and dressing, getting to school on time, staying at
school, and that A.S. must take breaks when using his hands due to pain.
4) The R&R erred by failing to recognize that the domain of Caring for Himself requires
more than the ability to eat and dress independently, but instead examines how well a
child copes with stress and changes in his/her environment and whether the child
takes care of his/her own health, possessions and living area.
5) The R&R erred by failing to address the significant evidence of record documenting
the severe impact of A.S.’s anxiety on his ability to calm himself, handle stress and
changes in his environment and deal with his emotional wants and needs.
6) The R&R erred in concluding that the ALJ built a logical bridge between the evidence
and his conclusion that A.S. has less than marked limitations in the domain of Caring
for Himself.
7) The R&R erred in concluding that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s assessment
of the allegations of A.S. and plaintiff.
8) The R&R erred in finding that the ALJ properly considered plaintiff’s allegations
regarding A.S.’s symptoms and allegations and rafted and evidence-based assessment
of A.S.’s abilities and limitations.
9) The R&R erred by ignoring the deficiencies in the ALJ’s assessment of A.S.’s
impairments and testimony from plaintiff documenting A.S.’s severe anxiety.

3

I have conducted a careful de novo review of Plaintiff’s objections, the record, the R&R,
the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, and agree with the magistrate judge’s
recommendation. I find that the magistrate judge applied the proper standard of review, that there
is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and that the ALJ’s decision is in accord with relevant case precedent.
III.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R, Dkt. 28, are OVERRULED;
2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 27, is fully ACCEPTED
and ADOPTED;
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 14, is DENIED;
4. The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 24, is GRANTED in
part;
5. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED; and
6. A separate final judgment will be entered.
Entered: September 24, 2024

Robert S. Ballou
Robert S. Ballou
United States District Judge

4