Buffington v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Full title: NANCY ANN BUFFINGTON, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

Date published: Aug 27, 2012

Case No: 6:11-cv-1114-Orl-22GJK (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2012)

Opinion

Case No: 6:11-cv-1114-Orl-22GJK

08-27-2012

NANCY ANN BUFFINGTON, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

ANNE C. CONNWAY

ORDER

This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff's Complaint for review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying the Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments (Doc. No. 1).

The United States Magistrate Judge has submitted a report recommending that the decision be affirmed.

After an independent de novo review of the record in this matter, including the objections filed by the Plaintiff Nancy Ann Buffington ("Plaintiff"), the Court agrees entirely with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Report and Recommendation ("R & R").

The Court notes that in her objection to the R & R, Plaintiff, in a conclusory fashion, states, "Plaintiff hereby renews all of the arguments raised in Plaintiff's brief (Doc. No. 16), and would stress the following argument in response to the Report and Recommendation." (Doc. No. 24 at p. 1). The argument that followed only addressed, in part, the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") treatment of Dr. Oh's opinion and Plaintiff's ability to complete a normal workday without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms and without an unreasonable number and length of rest periods (Doc. No. 24).¹ Besides the foregoing, Plaintiff has failed to "clearly advise the district court and pinpoint the specific findings [of the R & R] that the party disagrees with." United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353,1360 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). As the Eleventh Circuit has noted,

1 Plaintiff also raises a new argument, not raised before the Magistrate Judge, that the ALJ improperly evaluated Dr. Zelenka's opinion. The Eleventh Circuit has held that "a district court has discretion to decline to consider a party's argument when that argument was not first presented to the magistrate judge." Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009). Because Plaintiff failed to raise the argument regarding Dr. Zelenka before the Magistrate Judge, the Court declines to consider it. (See (Doc. No. 23 at pp. 26-27 ("Neither the ALJ's credibility determination, nor the decision to give Dr. Zelenka's opinion little weight is being challenged on appeal."))). Moreover, even if the Court were to consider this argument, it finds Plaintiff's reasoning unpersuasive.

It is reasonable to place upon the parties the duty to pinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that the district court must specially consider. This rule facilitates the opportunity for district judges to spend more time on matters actually contested and produces a result compatible with the purposes of the Magistrates Act.

Schultz, 565 F.3d at 1360-61 (citation omitted). In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to pinpoint her objection to the Magistrate Judge's R & R, making conclusive objections instead. "Parties filing objection to a magistrate's report and recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court." Mardsen v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). Therefore, the Court need not address Plaintiff's conclusive objection of "renew[ing] all of the arguments raised in Plaintiff's brief (Doc. No. 16)." (Doc. No. 24 at p. 1). As to any other objections raised by Plaintiff, the Court does not find them persuasive.

Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation filed July 26, 2012 (Doc. No. 23), is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.

2. Plaintiff's objections (Doc. No. 24) are OVERRULED.

3. The Final Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying the Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments is hereby AFFIRMED. The clerk is directed to enter Judgment accordingly, and close the file.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 27, 2012.

_______________

ANNE C. CONNWAY

United States District Judge
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties