Opinion
4:21-cv-0594-P
09-19-2022
Jenny Ayala Perez, Plaintiff, v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Social Security Administration Comissioner, Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MARK T. PITTMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (“FCR”) in this case. ECF No. 25. The FCR included the finding and conclusion that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) harmlessly erred by failing to properly assess the opinions of one of Plaintiff Jenny Ayala Perez's treating physicians, Dr. Jordan Sudberg. Perez timely objected to Judge Cureton's recommendation that this Court find the ALJ's error harmless. ECF No. 27 at 1-2. Having reviewed de novo the objected-to parts of Judge Cureton's FCR, the Court concludes that the objection is meritless, so it is overruled. The FCR is adopted in full, and the ALJ's decision is affirmed.
Perez's arguments are essentially the same as those she presented to Judge Cureton. Compare ECF Nos. 22 at 17-21 and 24 at 3-5 with ECF No. 27 at 2-3. Accordingly, Judge Cureton has already considered these arguments, and the Court is “not obligated to address objections [which are merely recitations of the identical arguments made before the magistrate judge] because . . . such objections undermine the purpose of the Federal Magistrate's Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, which serves to reduce duplicative work and conserve judicial resources.” Owens v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 1:13-47, 2013 WL 1304470, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2013) (citing Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); Nickelson v. Warden, No. 1:11-cv-334, 2012 WL 700827, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 1, 2012)); see also Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan, 806 F.Supp. 380, 382 (W.D. N.Y. 1992) (holding that recitations of nearly identical arguments are insufficient as objections and constitute an improper “second bite at the apple”).
Also, the Commissioner's responsive brief, to which Perez replied, contained a harm analysis much like Judge Cureton's. See ECF No. 23 at 57.
Nevertheless, the District Judge reviewed Plaintiff's objection in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). And having reviewed de novo the FCR, record, and objection, the undersigned District Judge determines that the Findings and Conclusions of Magistrate Judge Cureton are correct. Accordingly, Perez's Objection is hereby OVERRULED. Judge Cureton's Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED, the Social Security Commissioner's final decision is AFFIRMED, and this action is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.