HULTGREN
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, overruling the plaintiff's objections and affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny Social Security benefits.
Plaintiff objected to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation that recommended affirming the denial of her Social Security benefits. The plaint…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Multiplying Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 33). Judge Mizell recommends affirming the decision to deny Social Security benefits for Plaintiff Cindy Hultgren. Hultgren objects to the R&R (Doc. 34), to which Defendant Commissioner of Social Security responded (Doc. 35). The R&R is ripe for review. When reviewing an R&R, the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When a party
Mizell cogently addressed. For the single part of Objection1 that isn’t clear reargument, it borders on frivolous because the ALJ obviously did not reopen the merits of the earlier claim. In short, the Court agrees with the wellreasoned R&R. Hultgren’s strategy to copy and paste parts of the Joint
Memorandum (Doc. 30) falls short. And no further discussion on the objections’ merit is necessary. That said, the Court wonders how these cut-and-paste objections did not unreasonably or vexatiously multiply proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (“Any attorney . . . who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.”) Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45-46 (1991) (explaining federal courts’ inherent power to sanction vexatious and bad-faith actions). If Hultgren took issue with the R&R, she never explained why. Instead, the objections regurgitate what Judge Mizell already rejected, hoping the Court might disagree. Hultgren has experienced counsel who knows (or should know) this Court—along with others around Florida—refuse to consider improper reargument. E.g., Cole v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec’y, No. 2:20-cv-524-SPC-NPM, 2021 WL 5866968, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2021) (summarily rejecting mere reargument objections).2 These types of objections only waste scare judicial resources. This reargument may (as here) prompt the Commissioner to respond—resulting in spent taxpayer dollars and possible delay for other Social Security claimants. Of course, it is always improper to unnecessarily multiply proceedings. But these facts are even more problematic. The underlying record was nearly
3,500 pages. The Joint Memo was a sixty-five page, six-issue brief. The ALJ’s decision (fifteen pages) and R&R (twenty-six pages) were thorough and wellreasoned. That’s a long way of saying the issues were fully explored. So it is unclear why counsel chose to file thirteen pages of copy and paste objections that reiterate the same argument. The Court will take no further action at
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record