Opinion
Civil Action 3:22cv654
02-12-2024
FLORENCE L.,[1] Plaintiff, v. MARTIN O'MALLEY,[2] Commissioner of he Social Security Administration, Defendant.
FINAL MEMORANDUM ORDER
M. Hannah Lauck, United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 24). (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff lodges two objections to the R&R: (1) the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) “offered no analysis which ties her conclusions to the evidence in the record, nor did she articulate how her consideration of the factors of supportability and consistency led her to find the opinion of Dr. Allocca unpersuasive;” and, (2) “the [residual functional capacity] contains no limitations regarding Plaintiff's ability to concentrate and .. . the ALJ offer[ed] no explanation for her conclusions r regarding how Plaintiffs mental limitations affect her ability to perform job-related tasks for a full workday[.]” (ECF No. 25, at 2, 3.)
“The purpose of magistrate [judge] 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 Fed.Appx. 289, 290 (4th Cir. 2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Likewise, a mere restatement of the arguments raised in the summary judgment filings does not constitute an ‘objection' for the purposes 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 Fed.Appx. 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 she raised in her Motion for Summary Judgment. See Nichols, 100 F.Supp.3d at 497; (see ECF No. 18, at 8-12; 16-18.) She has not “respond[ed] to a specific error” in the R&R. See Overstreet, 2018 WL 1370865, at *1. Instead, she simply explains why she disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's decision based on grounds identical to arguments she raised in her 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 (MSD), 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) Plaintiffs Objections to the R&R, (ECF No. 25), are OVERRULED;
(2) The R&R, (ECF No. 24), is ADOPTED on the basis of the reasoning in the R&R;
(3) Plaintiff s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 17), is DENIED;
(4) The Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 20), is GRANTED; and, (5) The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
It is SO ORDERED.