Opinion
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:09cv467.
May 17, 2011
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties' cross Motions for Summary Judgment [Docs. 11 and 15], the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 18], the Plaintiff's Objections thereto [Doc. 19], and the Defendant's Reply [Doc. 20] regarding the disposition of those motions.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a specific Order of referral of the district court, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United States Magistrate Judge, was designated to consider these pending motions in the above-captioned action and to submit to this Court a recommendation for the disposition of these motions.
On March 31, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 18] in this case containing proposed conclusions of law in support of a recommendation regarding the motions. [Docs. 11 15]. The parties were advised that any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation were to be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days of service. Within the period for filing objections, Plaintiff filed his Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation. [Doc. 19].
For the reasons that follow, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation, GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff does not lodge any specific objections to the facts or procedural history section contained in the Memorandum and Recommendation, and, upon de novo review, those findings appear to be substantially supported by the record. Therefore, the portions of the Memorandum and Recommendation entitled "Administrative History" and "Factual Background" are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
III. DISCUSSION
28 U.S.C. § 636Id. Camby v. Davis718 F.2d 198200Orpiano v. Johnson 687 F.2d 4447de novo Id. Aldrich v. Bock327 F.Supp.2d 743747
None of Plaintiff's objections direct the Court to a specific error in the Memorandum and Recommendation; as such, they must be overruled. Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Memorandum and Recommendation and finds that the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge and the recommended disposition of this case are supported by the record and the law.
IV. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Commissioner correctly applied the law, and the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits was based on substantial evidence.
The Court notes that both Plaintiff's underlying brief [Doc. 12] and his Objections [Doc. 19] manifest a misapprehension on the part of counsel regarding the standard of review to which a federal district court is constrained. These documents present a boilerplate statement of general legal principles, and an impassioned reiteration of the best facts from his case, rather than asserting errors of law, at least with any specificity. In other words, his briefs demonstrate that counsel expects de novo factual review. Unlike what the Agency offers with its reviews (reconsideration and the ALJ hearing), the District Court is not empowered to ignore the opinion of the adjudicator below and impose its own opinion about a claimant's qualification for benefits. This Court can only examine the record that was before the ALJ. If substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision, this Court is constrained to affirm it regardless of the possibility that reasonable minds may differ on the same evidence.
The Magistrate Judge specifically noted that Plaintiff's arguments demonstrate an expectation of de novo review. [Doc. 18 p. 6]. Counsel's filing new and material evidence motions in most of his cases, and particular submissions in one recent case suggest he has a practice of requesting the latest medical records of a claimant during the pendency of a federal district court appeal, in search of something to bolster his case. Since the district court only reviews what was before the ALJ, such a practice compels the conclusion that counsel mistakenly believes de novo review is the applicable standard.
ORDER
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. No. 19), ADOPTS the Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 18), GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 15), DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 11), and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's decision.IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 16, 2011