United States District Court, S.D. Ohio
Justina R. Scott, Plaintiff,
Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
objects to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") dated October 31, 2016,
ECF No. 21. In the R&R, ECF No. 20, Magistrate Judge Kemp
recommended that the Court overrule Plaintiffs Statement of
Specific Errors, in which Plaintiff challenged the
Commissioner of Social Security's (the
"Commissioner") decision to deny Plaintiffs
application for supplemental security income.
reasons that follow, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs
objections, AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the R&R, and DISMISSES
applied for benefits on September 25, 2012, alleging that she
became disabled on April 1, 2006. After Plaintiffs initial
application was denied, an administrative law judge
("ALJ") held a hearing on Plaintiffs application.
The ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled within the
meaning of the Social Security Act (the "Act").
That decision became final on October 30, 2015, when the
Appeals Council denied review.
subsequently filed suit for judicial review of the
Commissioner's decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). Magistrate Judge Kemp analyzed Plaintiffs Statement
of Specific Errors and recommended that the Court overrule
the same. Plaintiff now objects to Magistrate Judge
Kemp's conclusions in the R&R.
Standard of Review
party objects to an R&R within the allotted time, the
Court "shall 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)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). Upon review, the Court "may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. §
well settled that, when objecting to an R&R, a party must
make "specific written objections" to the
magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations.
Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A general statement that the
magistrate judge erred does not aid judicial efficiency, the
purpose "for which the use of magistrates [was]
authorized." Howard v. Sec'y of Health &
Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); see
also Holl v. Potter, No. C-1-09-618, 2011 WL 4337038, at
*1 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 15, 2011), aff'd, 506
F.App'x 438 (2012) ("Objections that merely restate
arguments raised in the memoranda considered by the
Magistrate Judge are not proper, and the Court may consider
such repetitive arguments waived.").
Court must analyze Plaintiffs objections in light of the
standard of review in social security cases, which Magistrate
Judge Kemp correctly set forth in the R&R:
Under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g), "[t]he
findings of the Secretary [now the Commissioner] as to any
fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be
conclusive. ..." Substantial evidence is '"such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion."* Richardson v.
Perales,402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting
Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB,305 U.S. 197, 229
(1938)). It is "'more than a mere scintilla.*"
Id. LeMaster v. Weinberger,533 F.2d 337, 339 (6th
Cir. 1976). The Commissioner's findings of fact must be
based upon the record as a whole. Harris v. Heckler,756 F.2d 431, 435 (6th Cir. 1985); Houston v.
Secretary,736 F.2d 365, 366 (6th Cir. 1984); Fraley
v. Secretary,733 F.2d 437, 439-440 (6th Cir. 1984). In
determining whether the Commissioner's decision is
supported by substantial evidence, the Court must
"'take into account whatever in the record fairly
detracts from its weight.'" Beavers v. Sec'y
of Health, Educ. & Welfare,577 F.2d 383, 387 (6th
Cir. 1978) (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB,340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951)); Images v. Secretary of Health
and Human Servs.,755 F.2d 495, 497 (6th Cir. 1985).