Gullett v. Commissioner of Social Security

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BOWLING GREEN DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-00077-GNS-HBB

RAYMOND G. PLAINTIFF

v.

FRANK BISIGNANO,
Commissioner of Social Security DEFENDANT

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objection (DN 21) to the Magistrate Judge’s
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation (DN 20).
I. BACKGROUND
On December 28, 2021, Plaintiff Raymond G. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Title II protective
application for disability insurance benefits and a Title XVI protective application for
supplemental security income. (Admin. R. 17, 274, 276-77, 278-84, DN 11). Plaintiff alleged
that his disability began on December 31, 2018, due to a colon resection, atrial fibrillation, high
blood pressure, irritable bowel syndrome (“IBS”), and depression. (Admin. R. 17, 93, 100, 107,
114, 330). The application was denied initially and again upon reconsideration. (Admin. R. 17,
126, 131, 139, 142). Plaintiff then requested and was granted a hearing with an Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Admin. R. 17, 146, 169).
Following the hearing, the ALJ issued a written decision finding that Plaintiff was not
under a disability from December 31, 2018, through the date of the ALJ’s decision. (Admin. R.
17-29). After Plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s decision was denied by the Appeals
Council, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.
(Admin. R. 1-3).
Case 1:25-cv-00077-GNS-HBB Document 24 Filed 08/14/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2

Plaintiff then filed this action appealing that decision. (Compl., DN 1). The matter was
referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (R. & R. 1, DN 16). The
Magistrate Judge filed a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation (“R. &
R.”) in which it was recommended that the ALJ’s decision be affirmed and judgment be entered
for the Commissioner. (R. & R. 14). Plaintiff objected to the R. & R. (Pl.’s Obj. R. & R., DN
17 [hereinafter Pl.’s Obj.].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Upon timely objection to a Magistrate Judge’s proposed finding of fact and
recommendations for disposition produced under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court is generally
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.”). There is an exception to this general rule,
however, when an objection “merely incorporates portions of a [party]’s prior motion . . . .”
United States v. Ickes, No. 1:15-CR-00004-GNS-2, 2017 WL 1017120, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 15,
2017) (citation omitted). Such an objection does not rise to the level of a “‘specific written
objection[s] to the proposed findings and recommendations’ as required by Rule 72(b)(2).” Id.
(alteration in original) (citation omitted). “[A] reexamination of the exact same argument that
was presented to the magistrate judge without specific objections ‘wastes judicial resources
rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purpose of the Magistrates Act.’” Id. (quoting
Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)). When presented
with an objection that only repeats arguments raised to the Magistrate Judge, the Court should
review the objection only for clear error. Id.; accord Manigaulte v. C.W. Post of Long Island
Case 1:25-cv-00077-GNS-HBB Document 24 Filed 08/14/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3

Univ., 659 F. Supp. 2d 367, 372 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (“[W]hen a party makes only conclusory or
general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and
Recommendation only for clear error.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)). “Clear error
will be found only when the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.” Max Trucking, LLC v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Corp., 802 F.3d 793, 808
(6th Cir. 2015) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)).
In reviewing the administrative decision underlying a Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation, the Court must consider: “(1) ‘whether the findings of the ALJ are supported
by substantial evidence’ and (2) ‘whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standards.’” Chaney
v. Kajikazi, No. 5:21-CV-112-TBR, 2022 WL 3586213, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 22, 2022) (quoting
Miller v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 811 F.3d 825, 833 (6th Cir. 2016)). “Substantial evidence is
defined as more than a scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 241 (6th Cir.
2007)). “When substantial evidence supports an ALJ’s decision, we affirm even if we would
have decided differently and even if substantial evidence also supports the opposite conclusion.”
Id. (internal citations omitted) (quoting Francis v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 414 F. App’x 802,
805 (6th Cir. 2011)).
III. DISCUSSION
In his objection,
1
Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge in determining that the ALJ
had properly explained why his need for bathroom breaks were not included in the residual

1
Plaintiff invites the Court to review the arguments raised to the Magistrate Judge. (Pl.’s Obj.
2). To the extent that Plaintiff intends to incorporate those same issues into his objection, the
Case 1:25-cv-00077-GNS-HBB Document 24 Filed 08/14/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4

functional capacity. (Pl.’s Obj. 2). He asserts that the Magistrate Judge “copied and pasted the
ALJ’s analysis of [] [Plaintiff’s] subjective statements about his condition.” (Pl.’s Obj. 2 (citing
R. & R. 13).
The issue raised in the objection is the same issue raised in Plaintiff’s brief. (Pl.’s Br. 7,
DN 16 (“The ALJ failed to include any accommodation for frequent restroom breaks that would
be required by Mr. Gullett during an 8-hour workday.”)). Therefore, it was appropriate for the
Magistrate Judge to focus on the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s need for restroom break and how
that evidence was considered in the ALJ’s decision.
Plaintiff, however, mischaracterizes the lengthy analysis in the R. & R. (R. & R. 6-14).
In reviewing the ALJ’s summary of the evidence in the record at step four, the Magistrate Judge
considered the analysis conducted by the ALJ, focusing on the evidence relating to Plaintiff’s
IBS. (R. & R. 9-14). The ALJ specifically considered Plaintiff’s own testimony about his
symptoms, including his need for frequent restroom breaks. (Admin. R. 23-24). The ALJ also
examined the medical proof relating to Plaintiff’s IBS and colon resection. (Admin. R. 24).
Because there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s determination, the
objection is overruled. See Roush v. Barnhart, 326 F. Supp. 3d 858, 864 (S.D. Ohio 2004) (“The
Court’s sole function is to determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence
to support the Commissioner's decision.”).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection (DN
21) is OVERRULED, the Magistrate Judge’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and

objection is improper and is only viewed for clear error. See Manigaulte, 659 F. Supp. 2d at 372
(citation omitted).
Case 1:25-cv-00077-GNS-HBB Document 24 Filed 08/14/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Recommendation (DN 20) is ADOPTED, and judgment is GRANTEDfor the Commissioner.
The Clerk shall strike this matter from the active docket.
cc:counsel of record
August 14, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-00077-GNS-HBB Document 24 Filed 08/14/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>