UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION

EMILY G. Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No. 3:23-cv-359

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Defendant

* * * * *

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Emily G.1 (“Emily”) filed this action seeking review of the denial of disabilities benefits and supplemental security income by Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”). [DE 1]. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Colin H. Lindsay who issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation (“R&R”) that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed. [DE 17]. Emily timely filed objections [DE 18] and the Commissioner responded [DE 19]. Emily has not replied. The matter is ripe. For the reasons below, The Court OVERRULES Emily’s Objections [DE 18] and ACCEPTS Magistrate Judge Lindsay’s R&R without modification [DE 17]. I. BACKGROUND The R&R accurately sets forth the factual and procedural background of the case and is incorporated by reference. [DE 17 at 1632-34]. And Emily does not object to the factual record as set forth by the Magistrate Judge. [See DE 18]. In sum, Emily applied for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”). [DE 1 at 1-2]. Emily’s applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. [DE 16 at 1624]. She then appeared before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on September 28, 2022. [Id.]. The ALJ ruled against Emily,

1 Pursuant to General Order 23-02, the Plaintiff in this case is identified and referenced solely by first name and last initial. and she requested an appeal to the Appeals Council, which was denied. [DE 17 at 1634]. Because the Appeals council denied Emily’s review, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner. See

(a) (2023). Emily then sued to obtain judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. [DE 1]. Emily made two objections in her complaint: (1) that the “Appeals Coun[cil] declined to consider the supplemental treating source statements offered by

[Dr.] Sameet S. Sohi and Kristen Huckleberry Koetter, APRN, based on a conclusion that ‘this additional evidence does not relate to the period at issue’” which is clearly erroneous, and (2) the ALJ did not apply the correct analysis under SSR 19-4p. [DE 12 at 1606]. After reviewing the record and relevant law, Magistrate Judge Lindsay found that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and rejected Emily’s arguments. [DE 17]. Emily now objects to Magistrate Judge Lindsay’s findings in the R&R, arguing again: (1) the Appeals Council erred in its rejection of the additional medical source statements, and (2) the ALJ failed to undertake the entire consideration mandated by SSR 19-4p. [DE 18 at 1654]. II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review Under

(b)(1)(B), a district court may “designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of facts and recommendations for the disposition” of matters including review of the Commissioner’s final decision on disability insurance benefits. This Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

(b)(1)(C). A specific objection “explain[s] and cite[s] specific portions of the report which [counsel] deem[s] problematic.” Robert v. Tesson,

(6th Cir. 2007) (alterations in original) (citation omitted). A general objection that fails to identify specific factual or legal issues from the R&R is insufficient as it duplicates the magistrate judge’s efforts and wastes judicial resources. Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs.,

(6th Cir. 1991). After reviewing the evidence, the Court may accept, reject, or modify the proposed findings or recommendations of the magistrate.

However, an “objection . . . that merely reiterates arguments previously presented, does

not adequately identify alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge.” Altyg v. Berryhill, No. 16-11736,

, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2017) (citing Howard,

(“A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate’s report has the same effects as would a failure to object. The district court’s attention is not focused on any specific issues for review, thereby making the initial reference to the magistrate useless.”). “Rehashing or reiterating a previously raised argument to the Magistrate Judge is not a proper objection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and the Court will review the R&R only for clear error.” Joyce L. v. O'Malley,

, *5. B. Legal Objections

Emily’s objections to the R&R’s findings are identical to the arguments made in her initial challenge of the ALJ’s finding. [Compare DE 12 with DE 18]. And as noted above, restating an argument previously made without explaining how the Magistrate Judge erred is inadequate to state an objection. Therefore, Emily’s general objections and repetition of the arguments made in her initial challenge of the ALJ’s decision cannot qualify as specific objections; thus, the Court need not review de novo the Magistrate Judge’s report regarding Emily’s objections. Ells v. Colvin, No. 3:16-CV-00604-TBR,

, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 27, 2018). Nevertheless, the Court has conducted its own review of the record and finds no error in the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusion. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court, having considered the parties’ motions and related filings and being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS ORDERED as follows: (1) Emily’s Objections [DE 18] to the R&R are OVERRULED. (2) The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [DE 17] is ACCEPTED without modification as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court.

United States District Court September 18, 2024