Boyd v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division REDIFORD B..,! Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:23cv075 MARTIN O’MALLEY,” Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. FINAL MEMORANDUM ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Objection, (ECF No. 20), to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (ECF No. 18). In his objection, Plaintiff argues that Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), and by extension the Magistrate Judge, erred in evaluating the opinion of Dr. Good, Plaintiff's treating physician. (ECF No. 20, at 1-3;

see also ECF No. 20, at 3 (“The ALJ committed legal error by failing to provide explanations which meet the Agency’s guidelines, and also failed to provide a logical bridge between the evidence cited earlier and the conclusion reached. By extension, the ALJ did not provide evidence by which the Court could rely upon to properly affirm the decision.”))

! The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States recommends that, due to significant privacy concerns in social security cases, federal courts refer to a claimant only by his or her first name and last initial. 2 Martin O’Malley became the Commissioner of Social Security on December 20, 2023. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he has been substituted for Acting Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi as Defendant in this action. No further action need be taken to continue this suit. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

“The purpose of magistrate review is to conserve judicial resources.” Nichols v. Colvin, 100 F. Supp. 3d 487, 497 (E.D. Va. 2015) (citing United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007)). “[T]o preserve the district court’s role as the primary supervisor of magistrate judges,” a party “may raise objections with the magistrate judge’s report.” Id. (citing Midgette, 478 F.3d at 621). “[T]he objection requirement is designed to allow the district court to “focus

on specific issues, not the report as a whole.’” Id. (quoting Midgette, 478 F.3d at 621). Accordingly, “objections must be specific and particularized.” Id. “A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate judge’s report is tantamount to a failure to object.” Id. (quoting Tyler v. Wates, 84 F. App’x 289, 290 (4th Cir. 2003)). “Likewise, a mere restatement of the arguments raised in the summary judgment filings does not constitute an ‘objection’ for the purpose of district court review.” Id. (quoting Abou-Hussein v. Mabus, No. 2:09-1988, 2010 WL 4340935, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 2010), aff'd, 414 F. App’x 518 (4th Cir. 2011)). Instead, proper “objections must respond to a specific error in the” R&R. Overstreet v. Berryhill, No. 7:16cv585, 2018 WL 1370865, at *1 (W.D. Va. Mar. 16, 2018). Plaintiffs objections present nothing more than a “rehashing of the arguments” that he raised in his Motion for Summary Judgment. Nichols, 100 F. Supp. 3d at 497; (see ECF No. 13, at 9-16.) He has not “respond[ed] to a specific error” in the R&R. Overstreet, 2018 WL 1370865, at *1. Instead, he simply explains why he disagrees with the Magistrate Judge’s decision based on grounds identical to arguments he raised in his Motion for Summary Judgment. Thus, the Court finds de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s R&R unnecessary and reviews the R&R for clear error only. See Lee v. Saul, No. 2:18cv214, 2019 WL 3557876, at *1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2019). Having reviewed the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ORDERS that:

(1) Plaintiff's Objections to the R&R, (ECF No. 20), are OVERRULED; (2) The R&R, (ECF No. 18), is ADOPTED on the basis of the reasoning in the R&R; (3) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 12), is DENIED; (4) The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 15), is GRANTED: and, (5) The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. It is SO ORDERED.

/§/ Date: alh\eeey M. Hanna c Richmond, Virginia United States DiStrict Judge