Opinion
Case No. 3:18 CV 794
06-28-2019
Jennifer Brandt-Sterrett, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Jennifer Brandt-Sterrett applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income; Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denied that application (see Doc. 11 at 2). Brandt-Sterrett filed this Complaint seeking judicial review of that decision (Doc. 1). Her case was referred to Magistrate Judge James Knepp for a Report and Recommendation (R&R) under Local Civil Rule 72.2. After receiving Briefs on the Merits (Docs. 11, 14-15), Judge Knepp issued an R&R (Doc. 16), which recommends affirming the Commissioner's decision. Brandt-Sterrett objects (Doc. 17); the Commissioner responds (Doc. 18).
This Court adopts all uncontested findings and conclusions from the R&R and reviews de novo only those portions of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Hill v. Duriron Co., Inc., 656 F.2d 1208, 1213-14 (6th Cir. 1981). To trigger de novo review, objections to the R&R must be specific, not "vague, general, or conclusory." Cole v. Yukins, 7 F. App'x 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001). This specific-objection requirement is meant to direct this Court to "specific issues for review." Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). General objections, by contrast, ask this Court to review the entire matter de novo, "making the initial reference to the magistrate useless." Id.
"A general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously presented and addressed by the Magistrate Judge, does not sufficiently identify alleged errors in the [R&R]" to trigger de novo review. Fondren v. American Home Shield Corp., 2018 WL 3414322, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. 2018). See also Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004) ("An 'objection' that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an 'objection' as that term is used in this context."). General objections trigger only clear-error review. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 277 F. Supp. 3d 932, 965 (E.D. Tenn. 2017), aff'd, 899 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2018).
Here, Brandt-Sterrett makes two objections: (1) the administrative law judge (ALJ) incorrectly evaluated the treating physician's opinions and failed to provide good reasons for rejecting those opinions; and (2) the ALJ relied on a vague limitation (Doc. 17 at 2, 4). These general objections are the same arguments made to the Magistrate Judge (see Doc. 11 at 2). Thus, they trigger only clear-error review. This Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no clear error.
The closest Brandt-Sterrett comes to making a specific objection is her allegation that the Magistrate Judge misconstrued her argument about the ALJ's lack of explanation "as to why [she] would be off-task no more than 10%" of her workday (Doc. 17 at 4-5). But the R&R addressed this argument directly, stating that "the ALJ's 10% off-task limitation is based on the fact that the action of moving from standing to sitting will inevitably take you off task for a short period of time" (Doc. 16 at 15). Substantial evidence supports this conclusion (see Doc. 10 at 43-54). Walters v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 528 (6th Cir. 1997).
The Objection (Doc. 17) is overruled. This Court adopts the R&R (Doc. 16) in its entirety. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed, and this action is dismissed. Further, this Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jack Zouhary
JACK ZOUHARY
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
June 28, 2019