Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Julie H. v. Saul

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division

September 9, 2019

JULIE H.,[1] Plaintiff,
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, [2] Defendant.


          Elizabeth K. Dillon, United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Julie H. brought this action for review of the final decision made by defendant, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Commissioner), finding her not disabled and therefore denying her claim for supplemental security income (SSI) and disability insurance benefits (DIB) under the Social Security Act. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the court referred the motion to U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou for a report and recommendation (R&R). On December 18, 2018, the magistrate judge issued his R&R, finding that substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's decision. (R&R, Dkt. No. 24.) Julie filed a timely objection on January 1, 2019. (Pl. Obj., Dkt. No. 25.)

         After de novo review of the pertinent portions of the record, the report, and the filings by the parties, in conjunction with the applicable law, the court agrees with the magistrate judge's recommendation. Accordingly, the court will grant the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment, deny Julie's motion for summary judgment, and affirm the Commissioner's decision.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The court adopts the recitation of facts and procedural background as set forth in the report. (R&R 2-12.)


         A. Standard of Review

         This court's review of the administrative law judge's (ALJ) underlying decision is limited. Specifically, “[a] district court's primary function in reviewing an administrative finding of no disability is to determine whether the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence.” Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence does not require a “large or considerable amount of evidence, ” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 564- 65 (1988); rather, it requires “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). This is “more than a mere scintilla of evidence [and] somewhat less than a preponderance.” Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966).

         Where, as here, a matter has been referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this court reviews de novo the portions of the report to which a timely objection has been made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-74 (1980) (finding that de novo review of the magistrate's report and recommendation comports with due process requirements).

         For an objection to trigger de novo review, it must be made “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. 2007). Further, objections must respond to a specific error in the report and recommendation. See Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). General or conclusory objections, therefore, are not proper; they are in fact considered the equivalent of a waiver. Id. Likewise, an objection that merely repeats the arguments made in the briefs before the magistrate judge is a general objection and is treated as a failure to object. Moon v. BWX Techs, 742 F.Supp.2d 827, 829 (W.D. Va. 2010). As other courts have recognized in the social security context, “[t]he Court may reject perfunctory or rehashed objections to R&Rs that amount to a second opportunity to present the arguments already considered by the Magistrate Judge.” Heffner v. Berryhill, No. 2:16-cv-820, 2017 WL 3887155, at *3 (D.S.C. Sept. 6, 2017) (quoting Felton v. Colvin, No. 2:12-cv-558, 2014 WL 315773, at *7 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2014)). Because “[t]he purpose of magistrate review is to conserve judicial resources, ” a “mere restatement of the arguments raised in the summary judgment filings does not constitute an ‘objection' for the purposes of district court review.” Nichols v. Colvin, 100 F.Supp.3d 487, 497 (E.D. Va. 2015).

         B. Julie H.'s Objections

         In her brief to the magistrate judge in support of summary judgment, Julie argued that the ALJ failed to: (1) address her moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace or moderate limitations in social functioning in assessing her residual functional capacity (RFC) and ability to sustain work; (2) provide a proper hypothetical to the vocational expert; (3) consider on a function-by-function basis whether her impairments affect her ability to work; and (4) provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the plaintiff's allegations regarding her subjective complaints. (Pl. Mot. Summ. J. 27-48, Dkt. No. 15.) Julie's objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation largely reiterate those arguments. (See, e.g., Pl. Obj. 2 (“The Report and Recommendation erred in concluding that the ALJ properly explained the basis for her RFC findings.”); id. at 3 (“[T]he Report and Recommendation's conclusion that the ALJ's hypothetical questions were sufficient . . . is not supported by substantial evidence.”); id. at 4 (“The Report and Recommendation's conclusion that the ALJ accommodated plaintiff's social function limitations in the RFC . . . is not supported by substantial evidence.”); id. at 5 (“The Report and Recommendation erred in concluding . . . that the ALJ properly detailed plaintiff's medical records, the medical opinions, plaintiff's testimony and the ALJ's conclusions.”); id. at 7 (“The Report and Recommendation erred in concluding substantial evidence supports the ALJ's assessment of plaintiff's allegations.”).) Julie's objections are mostly a condensed version of her summary judgment brief, and the court will not address arguments that were thoroughly explored by the magistrate judge. Nonetheless, even if the court were to consider the objections de novo, it would conclude that the magistrate judge's reasoning is correct and the ALJ's determination is supported by substantial evidence.

         1. RFC mental limitations

         Julie first argues that the ALJ does not adequately support the RFC findings as to Julie's ability to sustain work despite her mental limitations. Specifically, she argues that the ALJ did not explain why Julie can engage in “simple, repetitive, unskilled work.” (Id. at 2.) She further argues that the ALJ limited Julie to no interaction with the general public, but nonetheless allowed her to interact with coworkers or supervisors occasionally. (Id. at 2-3.) Thus, Julie contends that the ALJ failed to build a logical bridge between the evidence and her findings by considering only Julie's ability to perform work and not her ability to sustain work over an eight- hour work day. (Id. at 3.) See Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 638 (4th Cir. 2015) (requiring an ALJ to discuss not only a ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.