Richardson v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
JUDGMENT/ORDER AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER and Plaintiffs case is dismissed with prejudice and adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as set forth in the 7 . Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on June 27, 2012. (sh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
BOB W. RICHARDSON
Case No. 3:11-CV-03038
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner
Social Security Administration
Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) filed on May 23, 2012,
by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas. Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 8).
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate’s findings concerning the Administrative Law Judge’s
(“ALJ”) determination of his residual functional capacity (“RFC”), maintaining that the ALJ’s findings
relative to Plaintiff’s RFC are not supported by substantial evidence . Plaintiff argues the ALJ did not
properly consider whether Plaintiff’s alleged pain was intense enough to cause functional limitations.
After reviewing the record de novo as to Plaintiff’s objection, the Court finds the Magistrate’s
reasoning on this point to be sound and further finds that Plaintiff’s objections offer neither law nor
fact requiring departure from the Magistrates’ findings. As stated by the Magistrate, it does not appear
that Plaintiff sought any treatment for his allegedly disabling impairments during the relevant time
period. See Comstock v. Chater, 91 F.3d 1143, 1147 (8th Cir. 1996) (ALJ may discount a claimant’s
complaints based on a failure to pursue medical treatment); Singh v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 448, 452 (8th Cir.
2000) (“a claimant’s allegations of disabling pain may be discredited by evidence that the claimant has
received minimal medical treatment and/or has taken only occasional pain medications”). Additionally,
there is an absence of objective medical evidence in the record to support Plaintiff’s complaints.
Hutton v. Apfel, 175 F.3d 651, 655 (8th Cir. 1999). The ALJ can consider these factors when making
an RFC determination, and the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings.
Therefore, having reviewed this case, and being well and sufficiently advised, the Court finds
that the Report and Recommendation is proper and should be and hereby is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY. Accordingly, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2012.
s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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?