United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
William C. Morris, Plaintiff,
Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Magistrate Judge, Kemp
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
November 7, 2016, the assigned United States Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), ECF
No. 15, recommending 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
applications for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental social security income. Plaintiff objects to the
R&R. ECF No. 16.
reasons that follow, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs
objections, AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the R&R, and DISMISSES
applied for benefits on October 19, 2012, alleging that she
became disabled on January 1, 2009. 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 December 21, 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). The Magistrate Judge analyzed Plaintiffs Statement of
Specific Errors and recommended that the Court overrule the
same. Plaintiff now objects to the Magistrate Judge'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 Plaintiff's objections in light of the
standard of review in social security cases, which the
Magistrate Judge 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. ...