United States District Court, D. Maryland
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, United States District Judge.
case was referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas DiGirolamo for
pretrial management and a Report and Recommendation for
disposition, which Judge DiGirolamo issued on June 8, 2016.
(ECF No. 22). Plaintiff Jonathan Jay Hill
(“Plaintiff”) filed an objection to the Report
and Recommendation. (ECF No. 25). For the following reasons,
Plaintiff’s objection will be overruled, and the Report
and Recommendation will be adopted.
factual background may be found in the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 22, at 2-9). Plaintiff suffered a
cerebrovascular accident, or a stroke, on May 19, 2012, which
Plaintiff contends prevented him from working. (Id.
at 3). Plaintiff protectively filed for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income on May 29, 2013.
After his application was denied initially and on
reconsideration, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an
administrative law judge (“ALJ”). Following the
hearing, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was
not disabled under the definitions of the Social Security
Act. (ECF No. 11-3, at 21-31). Plaintiff’s request for
review from the appeals council was denied, and the
ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the
April 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this court
seeking review of the ALJ’s decision. (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative,
to remand. (ECF No. 17). Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin
(“Defendant”) filed a motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 18), and Plaintiff responded (ECF No. 21). On June
8, 2016, Judge DiGirolamo issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that this court grant Defendant’s motion,
deny Plaintiff’s motion, and affirm the ALJ’s
decision. (ECF No. 22). On June 24, Plaintiff filed an
objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25), and
Defendant responded (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff argues that Judge
DiGirolamo did “not address at all the ALJ’s
failure to consider” certain medical entries in the
record. (ECF No. 25, at 8).
Standard of Review
Review of Magistrate Judge’s Report and
to 28 U.S.C. § 636, a district judge may designate a
magistrate judge to conduct hearings and report proposed
findings of fact and recommendations for action on a
dispositive motion. Thereafter,
A party who is aggrieved by a magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation as to a dispositive motion must file
“specific written objections to the proposed findings
and recommendations” within fourteen days. Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2). The district judge must then “determine
de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). But, the Court “need only
conduct a de novo review of those portions of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which
objection is made.” Chavis v. Smith, 834
F.Supp. 153, 154 (D.Md. 1993). As to those portions of the
report for which there is no objection, the district court
“must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315-16
(4thCir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory
committee note), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1091 (2006).
Baltimore Line Handling Co. v. Brophy, 771 F.Supp.2d
531, 534-35 (D.Md. 2011). Here, Plaintiff’s objection
Respectfully, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation fails to address Plaintiff’s primary
argument that the ALJ decision failed to consider numerous
critical pieces of medical evidence and explain how, if at
all, that evidence was evaluated in concluding that the
opinion of treating psychiatrist Milan Joshi,
M.D.’s opinion was entitled to “no weight”
and that “the medical evidence . . . does not
substantiate disabling limitations.” In particular, the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation simply
addresses the medical evidence in general terms without
considering any specific medical entries ignored by the
No. 25, at 1). In short, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ
impermissibly ignored pieces of material evidence regarding
his medical condition. Thus, the undersigned will conduct a
de novo review of the portions of the Report and
Recommendation regarding the ALJ’s assessment of
evidence. The remaining sections of the Report and
Recommendation will be assessed for clear error.
Federal Court Review of ALJ Decision
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
recently summarized the standard of review courts use when
reviewing an ...