Summary
applying Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 72.3 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure
Summary of this case from U.S. v. MingleOpinion
01-CV-0619E(Sr)
November 3, 2003
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
This decision may be cited in whole or in any part.
On September 4, 2001 Rawls initiated this action under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401-432 ("the SSA"), seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Social Security Disability Income benefits. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. by Order dated September 13, 2001. On April 10, 2003 Judge Schroeder filed a Report and Recommendation ("R R") that the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted and that plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied. Familiarity with the R R is presumed. After obtaining an extension of time in which to file objections to the R R, Rawls filed such on May 12 and this matter was argued and submitted on June 13. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's objections will be overruled and the R R will be adopted in its entirety.
The R R provides a thorough discussion of the facts and legal principles relevant to this action.
Rawls applied for disability benefits on August 4, 1997 and appeared before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") on April 14, 1999. In a written decision dated September 23, 1999, the ALJ concluded that Rawls was not disabled within the meaning of the SSA. The ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner on July 27, 2001 when the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration denied Rawls' request for a review of the ALJ's decision. Rawls now seeks review in this Court.
This Court must uphold the Commissioner's decision "unless it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on an error of law." Moreover, the Commissioner's findings of fact are conclusive where they are supported by substantial evidence. Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a de novo review of those portions of the R R to which specific written objection has been made.
Melville v. Apfel, 198 F.3d 45, 51-52 (2d Cir. 1999) ("It is not the function of a reviewing court to decide de novo whether a claimant was disabled or to answer in the first instance the inquiries posed by the five-step analysis set out in the SSA regulations.").
42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Tejada v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 770, 773-774 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.") (internal quotations omitted).
The R R recommends that the Commissioner's decision be upheld on the ground that it is supported by substantial evidence. Rawls argues that the R R erroneously applied the relevant law because it found her not disabled despite her alleged inability to "perform the full range of sedentary work." The Commissioner replied that Rawls' objections are merely a reiteration of arguments rejected by Judge Schroeder in the R R. This Court agrees.
Pl.'s Objs. at 5.
Rawls' objections fail to specifically identify the portions of the R R to which objection is made and merely reiterate her arguments before Judge Schroeder. Rule 72.3 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure ("LRCvP") requires parties objecting to an R R to "specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for such objection and shall be supported by legal authority." Judge Arcara well described the import of this rule where he stated:
"It is clear from the plain meaning of the rule that objections to a [R R] are to be specific and are to address only those portions of the proposed findings to which the party objects. It is improper for an objecting party to attempt to relitigate the entire content of the hearing before the Magistrate Judge by submitting papers to a district court [that] are nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge. Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a `second bite at the apple' when they file objections to a [R R], as the goal of the federal statute providing for the assignment of cases to magistrates is to increase the overall efficiency of the federal judiciary." Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 381-382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992) (construing predecessor rule that was verbatim of LRCvP 72.3) (internal quotations omitted).See also Barratt v. Joie, 2002 WL 335014, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citing Camardo and noting that "[w]hen a party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the [R R] only for clear error"); Dennard v. Kelly, 1997 WL 9785, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) (discussing Camardo and noting that a "proceeding before the Magistrate Judge is not a meaningless dress rehearsal"). Consequently, the R R will be reviewed for clear error. After reviewing the R R, the administrative record and having considered the arguments made in support of and in opposition to plaintiff's objections, this Court finds no clear error in Judge Schroeder's conclusion that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision to deny Rawls' application for disability benefits.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's objections are overruled, that the R R is adopted in its entirety, that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, that plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied and that this case shall be closed.