Releford v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 13

JUDGMENT AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER and Plaintiffs case is dismissed with prejudice and adopting the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as set forth in the 11 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Robert T. Dawson on July 12, 2012. (lw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION JAMEY D. RELEFORD PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL NO. 11-2095 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration DEFENDANT JUDGMENT Now on this 12th Day of July, 2012, comes on for consideration the Report and Recommendation dated May 1, 2012, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (Doc. 11). Also before the Court are Defendant’s Objections. (Doc. 12). After a sufficiently de novo review, advised, finds the as Court, follows: being The well and report and recommendation is proper and should be and hereby is adopted in its entirety. supports the The record shows Administrative Law that substantial Judge’s evidence determination that Plaintiff’s neck and back pain and hearing loss were non-severe impairments. Capacity Tompkins’ The Administrative Law Judge’s Residual Functional was proper and limitations his were reasons sufficient. Page 1 of 2    for discounting Dr. Finally, the Administrative Law Judge’s hypothetical question at step five was properly based adopted by the alleged limitations unsubstantiated. decision and on the limitations Administrative or Law that Judge impairments he were after rejected ultimately excluding as any untrue or The Court hereby affirms the Commissioner’s DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Robert T. Dawson Honorable Robert T. Dawson United States District Judge Page 2 of 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?