Owens v. Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
• Decided: March 13, 2024
• Docket: 6:23-cv-06036
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

NATHAN L. OWENS PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 6:23-cv-6036

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

ORDER

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 16. Judge Bryant recommends that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision (ECF No. 12, p. 37-42) denying Plaintiff Nathan L. Owens’ request for benefits be affirmed because it is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Specifically, Judge Bryant finds that the ALJ properly determined that Plaintiff was ineligible for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) and Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) for a period in which it is undisputed that Plaintiff was confined in the Arkansas State Hospital. Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the R&R. ECF No. 17. However, Plaintiff’s objection presents a medley of fractured thoughts and vague assertions that the Court cannot organize into a clear argument critical of Judge Bryant’s reasoning.1 Even construing Plaintiff’s pro se objection 0F liberally, the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s scattered and incoherent objection is sufficiently specific to require a de novo review of the R&R. See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting that specific objections shift a court’s review from one which scrutinizes for plain error to one in which the issues are reviewed de novo); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of

1 Plaintiff makes blanket assertions such that he is owed money and that this is an Arkansas law matter without further providing the basis of these assertions or giving any trackable reasoning. ECF No. 17, p. 1-2. Plaintiff also provides an edited and annotated copy of Judge Bryant’s R&R, which is similarly indecipherable. Id. at p. 3-4. 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.”); see also U.S. v. Sellner, 773 F.3d 927, 931-32 (8th Cir. 2014) (noting that a pro se filing must be liberally construed). Upon review, finding that there is no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge

Bryant’s reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 16) in toto. The ALJ’s denial (ECF No. 12, p. 37-42) of Plaintiff’s request for SSI and DIB is hereby AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 2) is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of March, 2024. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge