Graham v. Colvin
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's 12 Proposed Findings and Recommendation. The court adopts the factual and legal analysis contained within the PF&R, DENIES Claimant's 9 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Memorandum in Support of Claimant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, and DISMISSES this matter from the court's active docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 9/26/2017. (cc: attys) (mk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
ERNIE M. GRAHAM
o.b.o.
ANNETTE R. GRAHAM
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No: 1:16-03837
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action seeks review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security, who denied plaintiff’s
application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”).
By
Standing Order, this case was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley to consider the pleadings and
evidence, and to submit proposed findings of fact and
recommendation for disposition, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
On August 31, 2017, Magistrate Judge Tinsley issued Proposed
Findings & Recommendation (“PF&R”), recommending that this court
deny Claimant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and
Memorandum in Support of Claimant’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, affirm the final decision of the Commissioner, and
dismiss this case with prejudice.
ECF No. 11.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the parties had fourteen
days, plus three mailing days, from the date of the filing of
the PF&R to file objections.
On September 14, 2017, plaintiff timely filed objections to
the PF&R.
ECF No. 12.
The Government responded seven days
later. ECF No. 13.
I.
Background
Annette Rae Graham, through her husband, Ernie Graham, and
counsel, filed the instant DIB application on July 31, 2011,
under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401–433.
The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) initially denied
plaintiff’s application on February 24, 2012, and again upon
reconsideration on March 29, 2013.
Plaintiff requested and
received a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on
June 4, 2014.
The ALJ determined that plaintiff was not
entitled to disability benefits in a decision dated September
11, 2014.
(Tr. at 9-24).
The Appeals Council denied
plaintiff’s request for review on February 18, 2016, making the
ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner.
(Tr. At
1-3).
Plaintiff timely filed the present civil action seeking
judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
ECF No. 2.
A detailed factual description of plaintiff’s ailments and
alleged disability can be found in the PF&R (ECF No. 11, p. 32
10) and in the ALJ’s decision.
(Tr. at 11-22).
These
descriptions adequately and faithfully summarize the factual
information in the record, making it unnecessary to detail the
medical evidence again.
Therefore, this opinion will only
describe the facts as necessary to address plaintiff’s specific
objections.
II.
Standard of Review
Under Rule 72(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the district court reviews de novo any part of a
magistrate judge’s disposition to which a party has properly
filed an objection.
However, this court is not required to
review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or
legal conclusions of the magistrate judge regarding those
portions of the findings or recommendations to which the parties
have addressed no objections.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150
(1985).
The court’s review is limited to a determination as to
whether there is substantial evidence to support the
Commissioner’s conclusion that plaintiff failed to meet the
conditions for entitlement established by and pursuant to the
Social Security Act.
If such substantial evidence exists, the
final decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed.
Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990).
Hays v.
Substantial
evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence, considering
3
the record as a whole, as might be found adequate to support a
conclusion by a reasonable mind.
U.S. 389, 401 (1971).
Richardson v. Perales, 402
“If there is evidence to justify a
refusal to direct a verdict were the case before a jury, then
there is ‘substantial evidence.’”
Blalock v. Richardson, 483
F.2d 773, 776 (4th Cir. 1972) (quoting Laws v. Celebrezze, 368
F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966)).
A party that disputes a PF&R “may serve and file specific
written objections to the [PF&R].”
(emphasis added).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)
This court is required to undertake a de novo
review of proper objections to the magistrate judge’s PF&R.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Untimely objections of the magistrate judge’s PF&R are reviewed
only for clear error, if at all.
Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee notes (“When 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.”), with Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52
(1985) (“Petitioner first argues that a failure to object waives
only de novo review and that the district judge must still
review the magistrate’s report under some lesser standard.
However, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) simply does not provide for
such review.”).
4
III. Plaintiff’s Objections
“Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed
Findings and Recommendations” is virtually a verbatim copy of
the previously filed “Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s
Complaint.”
Compare ECF No. 12, with ECF No. 10.
The only
addition worth noting is a section at the end where plaintiff
asserts that the magistrate judge adopted the ALJ’s findings in
their entirety, and therefore “all arguments made against the
Commissioners [sic] decision be deemed to be objections to Judge
Tinsley’s proposed findings and recommendation.”
18.
ECF No. 12, p.
Stated briefly, plaintiff is dissatisfied with the finding
of the magistrate judge and seeks re-argument of the entire case
under the guise of objecting.
This type of general objection fails to satisfy the
specificity requirements of Rule 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C).
As stated by the Sixth Circuit:
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. The duplication of time and
effort wastes judicial resources rather than
saving them, and runs contrary to the purposes of
the Magistrates Act. We would hardly countenance
an appellant’s brief simply objecting to the
district court’s determination without explaining
the source of the error. We should not permit
5
appellants to do the same to the district court
reviewing the magistrate’s report.
Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509
(6th Cir. 1991).1
Copying and pasting an earlier brief does not
suffice as a proper objection to the PF&R.
See Veney v. Astrue,
539 F. Supp. 2d 841, 846 (W.D. Va. 2008)(quoting Howard v. Sec'y
of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir.1991)
(“Allowing a litigant to obtain de novo review of her entire
case by merely reformatting an earlier brief as an objection
‘make[es] the initial reference to the magistrate useless.’”).
As such, plaintiff’s objections to the PF&R are reviewed for
clear error, in which the court finds none.
Plaintiff misunderstands the role of the district court in
its review of the final decision of the Commissioner.
This
1
The Fourth Circuit agrees:
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 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 the 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.
United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007).
6
court, and therefore the magistrate judge, does not “adopt” the
ALJ’s findings.
The court simply determines whether the ALJ’s
findings are supported by substantial evidence.
court may disagree with an ALJ.
A district
That does not permit the court
to reverse the ALJ’s findings when there is “more than a mere
scintilla of evidence” to support them.
F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996).
Craig v. Chater, 76
By making the general argument
that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s decision
and offering contrary evidence from the record, plaintiff asks
this court to reweigh the evidence.
This is not this court’s
role.
IV.
Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the court
OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Proposed Findings and Recommendation.
ECF No. 12.
The court
adopts the factual and legal analysis contained within the PF&R,
DENIES Claimant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and
Memorandum in Support of Claimant’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, ECF No. 9, AFFIRMS the final decision of the
Commissioner, and DISMISSES this matter from the court’s active
docket.2
2
The court notes that given the record provided to this court, a
de novo review would yield the same result.
7
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 26th day of September, 2017.
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?