Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI CARRIE S.1, : Case No. 1:20-cv-1026 Plaintiff, : Judge Matthew W. McFarland Vv. : COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL : SECURITY, : Defendant. : ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (Doc. 18) AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 17) This action is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 17). Magistrate Judge Bowman recommended that the Court find that the administrative law judge’s finding of non-disability be affirmed because it is supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. 18), to which the Commissioner responded (Doc. 19). Thus, this case is ripe for the Court's review. Plaintiff uses her objections to rehash the same arguments she raised before Magistrate Judge Bowman. She claims the ALJ erred by mischaracterizing occupational therapist Kristy Bockrath’s Functional Capacity Evaluation. Additionally, Plaintiff claims 1 Due to the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States’ recommendation that federal courts only refer to claimants by their first names and last initials due to privacy concerns, “any opinion, order, judgment or other disposition in social security cases in the Southern District of Ohio shall refer to claimants only by their first names and last initials.” See General Order 22-01. that Magistrate Judge Bowman did not adequately address this alleged err. Despite this contention, such argument was thoroughly considered and addressed by Magistrate Judge Bowman. (Report and Recommendations, Doc. 17, Pg. ID 1582-83.) And objections to magistrate judges’ reports and recommendations are not meant to be vehicles for rehashing arguments that the magistrate judge already considered. Nickelson v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst., No. 1:11-CV-00334, 2012 WL 700827, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 1, 2012). Such objections fail to identify any specific errors in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Owens v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No, 1:12-CV-47, 2013 WL 1304470, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2013). Instead, objections that recite arguments made to the magistrate judge effectively duplicate the functions of the district court “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). Nonetheless, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's objections are not well-taken and are accordingly OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 17) in its entirety and finds that the ALJ’s decision is SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE and AFFIRMED. Accordingly, this case is CLOSED. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Wt WHS By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND