From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Daniel v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Winchester
Sep 6, 2011
Case No. 4:10-cv-32 (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 6, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 4:10-cv-32.

September 6, 2011


ORDER


On July 14, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter filed his Report and Recommendation [Court Doc. 15] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Plaintiff timely filed his objections [Court Doc. 16] on July 28, 2011. Defendant did not respond.

The Court has reviewed de novo those portion of Magistrate Judge Carter's Report and Recommendation to which an objection has been made. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 72(b). The Court finds that Plaintiff's objections raise no new arguments but simply reargue issues previously raised in his Brief in Support of Motion for Judgment on Administrative Record [Court Doc. 10] ("Pl.'s Br. in Supp."), which issues were fully addressed in the Report and Recommendation. The Court finds that further analysis of these same arguments would merely be cumulative and is unwarranted in light of Magistrate Judge Carter's wellreasoned and well-supported Report and Recommendation.

In his Objections, Plaintiff makes a number of references — for instance, "the ALJ properly rejected the RFC assessment of Dr. Langenberg" — that seem to refer to statements and individuals not found in this case, let alone relevant. Similar errors occured in other parts of Plaintiff's briefing. (Court Doc. 10, Pl.'s Br. in Supp., 15) ("Ms. Peters Osier's subjective complaints as required by Social Security Ruling 96-4p and 96-7p.") The Court ignores any such references, but notes them insofar as they help demonstrate the careless, repetitious, and insubstantial nature of Plaintiff's Objections.

Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Carter's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b). Plaintiff's objections [Court Doc. 16] are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on Administrative Record [Court Doc. 9] is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Court Doc. 13] is GRANTED. The Commissioner's denial of benefits is AFFIRMED and the instant action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

A separate judgment will enter. The Clerk shall close the case.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Daniel v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Winchester
Sep 6, 2011
Case No. 4:10-cv-32 (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 6, 2011)
Case details for

Daniel v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY HAYES DANIEL, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Winchester

Date published: Sep 6, 2011

Citations

Case No. 4:10-cv-32 (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 6, 2011)

Citing Cases

Holden v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am.

"Objections disputing the correctness of the magistrate's recommendation, but failing to specify the findings…