United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Candie L. Watson, Plaintiff,
Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Vascura, Magistrate Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE.
February 6, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the
Court overrule Plaintiffs Statement of Errors and affirm the
Commissioner's decision. R&R, ECF No. 21. Plaintiff
objected to the R&R, and the Commissioner responded. ECF
Nos. 22 and 25. For the following reasons, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections,
AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the
R&R, and DISMISSES
protectively filed for Social Security Disability Insurance
benefits, Period of Disability benefits, and Supplemental
Security Income benefits on July 9, 2013, alleging that she
had been disabled since May 20, 2013. ALJ Decision, ECF No.
11-2, at PAGEID # 856. After her initial applications were
denied, Plaintiff went before Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ") Jason Earnhart for a hearing. Id.
On September 17, 2015, the ALJ issued an opinion denying
Plaintiff benefits. Id. at PAGEID ## 856-76.
Following the Appeals Council's denial of her request for
review, the ALJ's opinion became final on August 9, 2016.
Appeals Council Decision, ECF No. 11-2, at PAGEID # 840.
subsequently filed a timely Complaint for review in this
Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Magistrate
Judge analyzed Plaintiffs Statement of Errors and recommended
the Court affirm the Commissioner's decision. Plaintiff
objected to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.
party objects to the Magistrate Judge's summary of the
facts as set forth in her R&R. R&R 1-16, ECF No. 21.
The Court consequently adopts the fact summary and repeats
only those facts relevant to the resolution of
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 Fed.Appx. 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
in Social Security cases, the Court's review "is
limited to determining whether the Commissioner's
decision 'is supported by substantial evidence and was
made pursuant to the proper legal standards.'"
Ealy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec, 594 F.3d 504, 512
(6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rogers v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec, 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir. 2007)). In this
context, "[substantial evidence is defined as 'more
than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance
....'" Rogers, 486 F.3d at 421 (quoting
Cutlip v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 25
F.3d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1994)). Put another way,
"[substantial evidence exists when a 'reasonable
mind might accept' the relevant evidence 'as adequate
to support a conclusion.'" Warner v. Comm'r
of Soc. Sec, 375 F.3d 387, 390 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting
Kirk v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 667
F.2d 524, 535 (6th Cir. 1997)).
raises three objections to the Magistrate Judge's
R&R. First, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ's mental
residual functional capacity ("MRFC") was not
supported by substantial evidence. Next, Plaintiff argues
that the ALJ erred when he failed to include a limitation for
Plaintiffs migraines in his residual functional capacity
("RFC") determination. Finally, Plaintiff maintains
that the ALJ did not provide "good reasons" for
assigning little weight to Plaintiffs treating physician, Dr.
Zimmerer. The Court will address each objection in turn.
The ALJ's ...