United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
LINDA M. SNIDER, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
MICHAEL F. URBANSKI, District Judge.
This social security disability appeal was referred to the Honorable Robert S. Ballou, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for proposed findings of fact and a recommended disposition. The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on August 11, 2014, recommending that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied, the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment be granted and the Commissioner's final decision be affirmed. Plaintiff has filed objections to the report, the Commissioner has responded, and this matter is now ripe for the court's consideration.
Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to "serve and file specific, written objections" to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the report. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Fourth Circuit has held that an objecting party must do so "with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection." United States v. Midgette , 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir.), cert denied, 127 S.Ct. 3032 (2007).
To conclude otherwise would defeat the purpose of requiring objections. We would be permitting a party to appeal any issue that was before the magistrate judge, regardless of the nature and scope of objections made to the magistrate judge's report. Either the district court would then have to review every issue in the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations or courts of appeals would be required to review issues that the district court never considered. In either case, judicial resources would be wasted and the district court's effectiveness based on help from magistrate judges would be undermined.
Id. The district court must determine de novo any portion of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which a proper objection has been made. "The district court may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); accord 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
If, however, a party "makes general or conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations, '" de novo review is not required. Diprospero v. Colvin, No. 5:13-cv-00088-FDW-DSC , 2014 WL 1669806, at *1 (W.D. N.C. Apr. 28, 2014) (quoting Howard Yellow Cabs, Inc. v. United States , 987 F.Supp. 469, 474 (W.D. N.C. 1997) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson , 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982))). "The court will not consider those objections by the plaintiff that are merely conclusory or attempt to object to the entirety of the Report, without focusing the court's attention on specific errors therein." Camper v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 4:08cv69 , 2009 WL 9044111, at *2 (E.D. Va. May 6, 2009), aff'd, 373 F.App'x 346 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 610 (2010); see Midgette , 478 F.3d at 621 ("Section 636(b)(1) does not countenance a form of generalized objection to cover all issues addressed by the magistrate judge; it contemplates that a party's objection to a magistrate judge's report be specific and particularized, as the statute directs the district court to review only those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. '"). Such general objections "have the same effect as a failure to object, or as a waiver of such objection." Moon v. BWX Technologies , 742 F.Supp.2d 827, 829 (W.D. Va. 2010), aff'd, 498 F.App'x 268 (4th Cir. 2012); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985) ("[T]he statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed").
Additionally, objections that simply reiterate arguments raised before the magistrate judge are considered to be general objections to the entirety of the report and recommendation. See Veney v. Astrue , 539 F.Supp.2d 841, 844-45 (W.D. Va. 2008). As the court noted in Veney:
Allowing a litigant to obtain de novo review of her entire case by merely reformatting an earlier brief as an objection "mak[es] the initial reference to the magistrate useless. The functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court perform identical tasks. This duplication of time and effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrates Act." Howard [v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.], 932 F.2d [505, ]  509 [(6th Cir. 1991)].
539 F.Supp.2d at 846. A plaintiff who reiterates her previously-raised arguments will not be given "the second bite at the apple she seeks;" instead, her re-filed brief will be treated as a general objection, which has the same effect as would a failure to object. Id.
In the midst of the myriad impairments and extensive treatment history documented in the more than 1200 page administrative record,  Snider draws the court's attention to the opinion of her long-time primary care physician, Dr. Kenneth Walker, as to the functional limitations caused by her fibromyalgia. On January 19, 2011, Dr. Walker filled out a Fibromyalgia Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) Questionnaire, in which he opined that Snider could sit less than 2 hours and stand/walk less than 2 hours in an 8-hour workday. Dr. Walker indicated that Snider would need to take unscheduled breaks during the work day "every couple of hours, " but did not indicate for how long. He opined that she could occasionally lift less than 10 pounds and rarely lift 10 pounds, has significant limitations in doing repetitive reaching, handling or fingering, and would be absent from work more than four days per month as a result of her impairments. When asked if Snider's impairments were likely to produce "good days" and "bad days, " Dr. Walker checked "no" and commented: "Honestly-all seem bad. Never happy here." (R. 928-30.)
Snider argues that the magistrate judge erred in finding substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision to give no weight to Dr. Walker's opinion. Snider specifically takes issue with the ALJ's explanation of the weight given to Dr. Walker's opinion and contends "the Magistrate Judge attempts to provide the explanation for the ALJ's rejection of Dr. Walker's ...