United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
RANDAL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Regina Rolland filed this case to appeal the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for
Period of Disability and Disability Insurance Benefits under
the Social Security Act. On May 29, 2019, the Magistrate
Judge recommended the Commissioner's final decision be
affirmed, the civil action be closed, and a final judgment be
entered in favor of the Commissioner. (Doc. no. 20.) The
Court also instructed Plaintiff any objections to the Report
and Recommendation ("R&R") had to be filed no
later than June 17, 2019. (Doc. no. 21.) The Court granted
Plaintiffs request for an extension of time to file
objections and set the new deadline for July 17, 2019. (Doc.
nos. 22, 23.) Having received no objections to the R&R by
the extended deadline, the Court adopted the R&R as its
opinion on July 22, 2019, and the Clerk of Court entered a
judgment in favor of the Commissioner. (Doc. nos. 24, 25.)
25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration,
explaining she mailed her objections via certified mail on
July 16, 2019, and providing United States Postal Service
tracking information showing delivery of certified mail to
the Post Office Box designated for the Clerk of Court. (Doc.
no. 26.) Upon inquiry to the Post Office, the Clerk of Court
discovered undelivered mail, including a copy of Plaintiffs
objections, which were then placed on the
docket. (Doc. no. 27.) The Court recognizes the
objections did not reach the Court through no fault of
Plaintiff, and therefore GRANTS the motion
for reconsideration. (Doc. no. 26.) Thus, the Court VACATES
the adoption order and judgment entered on July 22, 2019.
(Doc. nos. 24, 25.)
careful, de novo review of the file, the Court
concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. (Doc.
no. 27.) Plaintiff generally objects to the ultimate
recommendation to affirm the Commissioner's decision and
recounts her interpretation of events that occurred during
the administrative hearing, emphasizing select pieces of
information in the administrative record which she believes
undermines the administrative decision. (See generally
id.) However, as the R&R explains, the Court cannot
revisit the issue of disability de novo. (Doc. no.
20, pp. 5-6 (citing Moore v. Barnhart. 405 F.3 1208,
1211 (11th Cir. 2005).) Plaintiffs interpretation of select
evidence does not undermine the analysis in the R&R
explaining the administrative decision appropriately
considered the entire record and is supported by substantial
first time in her objections, Plaintiff requests the Court
consider a remand of the case pursuant to sentence six of
§ 405(g). (Doc. no. 27, p. 8.) While courts have the
discretion to consider novel evidence, factual claims, and
legal argument raised for the first time in an objection to
an R&R, they are under no obligation to do so.
Williams v. McNeil. 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir.
2009) (holding district judge has discretion to decline
consideration of argument not first presented to the
magistrate judge); Frone v. JP Morgan Chase &
Co.. 695 Fed.Appx. 468, 472 (11th Cir. 2017) (per
curiarri). The Court declines to do so here.
even if the Court were to consider the new information, it
fails to undermine the Magistrate Judge's R&R.
Indeed, the Magistrate Judge acknowledged Plaintiffs new
evidence and explained Plaintiff never asked for a sentence
six remand, but even if she had, she would have to show
"good cause" for failing to produce the new
evidence at the administrative level. (Doc. no. 20, p. 6
(citing Ingram v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin..
496 F.3d 1253, 1267 (11th Cir. 2007).) Plaintiffs objections
do not provide the requisite good cause.
the Court OVERRULES all of Plaintiffs
objections, ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion,
AFFIRMS the Commissioner's final
decision, CLOSES this civil action, and
DIRECTS the Clerk to enter final judgment in
favor of the Commissioner.
The Clerk of Court failed to issue a
deficiency notice even though Plaintiff did not attach, as
required by Local Rule 5.1, a Certificate of Service showing
the objections had been served on Defendant. The Court
previously reminded Plaintiff of this service requirement and
specifically provided the name and address of defense
counsel. (See doc. no. 15.) Moreover, the Magistrate
Judge's July 22, 2019 Order specifically informed
Plaintiff she must serve a copy of her objections ...