Opinion
Civil Action 3:20-cv-745
03-09-2022
SEEMIA Y. S., [1] Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, [2] Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
FINAL MEMORANDUM ORDER
JOHN A. GIBNEY, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiffs objection, (ECF No. 30), to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), (ECF No. 29). In her objection, the plaintiff Seemia Y. S. asserts that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") relied on an inadequate record to determine that she can "frequently handle, finger, or feel with her bilateral upper extremities." (R. at 14.) Importantly, this objection mirrors the plaintiffs argument for summary judgment. (Compare ECF No. 30, at 1-2, with ECF No. 22, at 11-13.)
"The purpose of magistrate review is to conserve judicial resources." Nichols v. Colvin, 100 F.Supp.3d 487, 497 (E.D. Va. Mar. 13, 2015) (citing United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007)). To "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). Accordingly, "objections must be specific and particularized." Id. "[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)). "The Court may reject perfunctory or rehashed objections to R&R's that amount to 'a second opportunity to present the arguments already considered by the Magistrate-Judge.'" Hartfteldv. Colvin, No. 2:16cv431, 2017 WL 4269969, at *5 (E.D. Va. Sept. 26, 2017) (quoting Gonzales-Ramos v. EmpresasBerrios, Inc., 360 F.Supp.2d 373, 376 (D. P.R. 2005)).
The plaintiffs objection presents nothing more than a rehashing of the argument that she raised in her motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff contends that because the ALJ found the opinions of the state agency medical consultants unpersuasive as to her manipulative limitations, the ALJ should have solicited other medical opinions on the subject instead of relying on the record before her to conclude that the plaintiff can "frequently handle, finger, or feel with her bilateral upper extremities." (R. at 14.) This is precisely the argument she made in her motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge considered this argument in the R&R and disagreed with the plaintiffs conclusion. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge explained that "sufficient evidence in the record . . . enabled the ALJ to make a disability determination," (ECF No. 29, at 9), and the ALJ "sufficiently identified the evidence that supported her conclusion and built an accurate and logical bridge from that evidence to her conclusion that Plaintiff can only frequently handle, finger, or feel with her bilateral upper extremities," (id. at 12.)
Because the plaintiffs objection mirrors her argument for summary judgment-an argument addressed and rejected by the Magistrate Judge-the Court finds de novo review unnecessary and reviews the Magistrate Judge's R&R for clear error only. See Lee v. Saul, No. 2:18cv214, 2019 WL 3557876, at *1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2019); see also Veney v. Astrue, 539 F.Supp.2d 841, 844-46 (W.D. Va. 2008) (reviewing an R&R for clear error because "[allowing a litigant to obtain de novo review of her entire case by merely reformatting an earlier brief as an objection 'mak[es] the initial reference to the magistrate useless'" (quoting Howard v. Sec 'y of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991) (second alteration in original)). Having reviewed the record, and finding no clear error, the Court hereby ORDERS that:
The Court finds that the issues are adequately addressed by the briefs and oral argument would not materially aid the decisional process.
(1) The plaintiffs objection to the R&R of the Magistrate Judge, (ECF No. 30), is OVERRULED.
(2) The R&R of the Magistrate Judge, (ECF No. 29), is ADOPTED on the basis of the reasoning of the R&R.
(3) The plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 21), is DENIED.
(4) The Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, (ECF No. 27), is GRANTED.
(5) The Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED.
It is so ORDERED.
Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.