Hagberg v. Social Security Administration, No. 1:2009cv00001 - Document 27 (D. Mont. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 20 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Social Security Administration IS GRANTED, 24 Findings and Recommendations, 17 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dustin Hagberg IS DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard F. Cebull on 10/14/2009. (AMC, )

Download PDF
Hagberg v. Social Security Administration Doc. 27 FILED BILLItjGS 01'4. 2009 DCT 1 Pm 2 17 Y p/,TR\(,K E. -G;:[ f f, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ;,\-EK< BILLINGS DIVISION DUSTIN A. HAGBERG, Plaintiff, VS. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) CV-09-01-BLG-RFC-CSO ) ) ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS ) AND REC0MM:ENDATIONSOF ) U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) ) ) On September 10,2009, United States Magistrate Judge CJarolyn Ostby entered Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 24) on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Ostby recommends the Cornrnissioner's motion (Doc. 20) be granted and that Hagberg's motion (Doc. 1:7) be denied. Upon service of a magistrate judge's findings and recomniendation, a party has 10 days to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. fj 636(b)(l). In this matter, Plaintiff filed objections on September 18,2009 (Doc. 25), to which Defendant responded on September 28,2009 (Doc. 26). Plaintiffs' objections require this Court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the Findings and Dockets.Justia.com Recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. 8 636(b)(l). Plaintiffs objections must be overruled because they merely repeat the arguments already rejected by Judge Ostby. Objections to a magistrate's Findings and Recommendations are not a vehicle for the losing party to relitigate its case. Camardo v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992). Congress created magistrate judges to provide district judges "additional assistance in dealing with a caseload that was increasing far more rapidly than the number of judgeships." Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 153 (1985) (internal quotations omitted). There is no benefit if the district courts is required to review .the entire matter de novo because -theobjecting party merely repeats the arguments rejected by the magistrate. In such situations, this Court follows other courts that have overruled the objections without analysis. See Sullivan v. Schiro, 2006 WL 1516005, * 1 (D. Ariz. 2006)(collecting cases). This conclusion, however, does not relieve the Court of its duty to review de novo Magistrate Judge Ostby's conclusions of law. Barilla v. E'win, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989) (the failure to file objections only relieves the trial court of its burden to give de novo review to factual findings; conclusions of law must still be reviewed de novo) overruled on other grounds by Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, Magistrate Judge Ostby correctly concluded that the Administrative Law Judge's conclusions are supported by the record and are not based on legal error. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947,954 (9th Cir. 2002). After a de novo review, the Court concludes Magistrate Judge Ostby's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 24) are well-grounded in law and fact and are adopted in their entirety. The Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 20) is GRANTED, while Hagberg's motion (Doc. 17) is DENIED. I T IS SO ORDE DATED this October 2009. CHARD F. CEBULL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.