Phelps v. Social Security Administration

Filing 20

ORDER accepting 15 Recommended Disposition; denying plaintiff's 2 request for relief. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 8/26/2015. (ks)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JENNIFER BRANDI PHELPS v. PLAINTIFF No. 4:14–CV–684‐SWW CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT ORDER ACCEPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION After reviewing the recommended disposition (docket entry # 15) and the objections (docket entry # 19), the court OVERRULES the objections, ACCEPTS the recommended disposition, and DENIES Jennifer Brandi Phelps’s request for relief (docket entry # 2). The court reviewed the record de novo and concluded that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision.  The magistrate judge made no post‐hoc findings; instead, the magistrate judge explained why a reasonable mind will accept the decision that Phelps can do unskilled, simple, repetitive, sedentary work involving superficial interpersonal contact. The magistrate judge relied on the evidence and reasoning intrinsic to the Commissioner’s decision.  The magistrate judge’s reasoning is consistent with this jurisdiction’s legal authorities.  The magistrate judge discussed the issues differently than Phelps framed her arguments, but the difference does not undermine the explanation about why substantial evidence supports the decision and why Phelps’s arguments provide no basis for relief.  The difference flows from function: advocacy versus judicial review. Because a reasonable mind will accept the evidence as adequate to support the decision, the court will enter judgment affirming the decision of Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. So ordered this 26th day of August, 2015. /s/Susan Webber Wright UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?