Haffey v. Colvin

Filing 26

ORDER: The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 23 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. The objection 24 is DENIED. by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 3/17/14.(rbjcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00480-RBJ-GPG
MICHELE HAFFEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the January 23, 2014 Recommendation by Magistrate
Judge Gordon P. Gallagher [ECF No. 23] to affirm the Commissioner’s decision denying
plaintiff Michele Haffey’s application for disability insurance benefits pursuant to Title II of the
Social Security Act. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. Ms. Haffey
through counsel filed a timely objection on February 6, 2014. The Commission filed a response
on February 20, 2014. No reply was filed. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
This appeal is based upon the administrative record and briefs submitted by the parties.
In reviewing the recommendation of a magistrate judge, the role of the district court is to make a
de novo determination of any portion of the magistrate judge’s report on which an objection has
been properly made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). In reviewing a final
decision by the Commissioner, the role of the district court is to examine the record and
determine whether it “contains substantial evidence to support the [Commissioner’s] decision

1

and whether the [Commissioner] applied the correct legal standards.” Rickets v. Apfel, 16
F.Supp.2d 1280, 1287 (D. Colo. 1998). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d
1136, 1140 (10th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). Evidence is not substantial if it “constitutes
mere conclusion.” Musgrave v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1371, 1374 (10th Cir. 1992).
The Court “may neither reweigh the evidence nor substitute [its] judgment for that of the
agency.” Harper v. Colvin, 528 F. App’x 887, 890 (10th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). Thus,
although some evidence could support contrary findings, the Court “may not displace the
agency’s choice between two fairly conflicting views,” even if the Court might “have made a
different choice had the matter been before it de novo.” Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258
(10th Cir. 2007). However, the Court must “meticulously examine the record as a whole,
including anything that may undercut or detract from the ALJ's findings in order to determine if
the substantiality test has been met.” Flaherty v. Astrue, 515 F.3d 1067, 1070 (10th Cir. 2007)
(citations omitted).
Upon review, the district court “shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and
transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” 45
U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Review
The Court has conducted a de novo review, specifically, a review of the administrative
record [ECF No. 14], including of course the hearing transcript, R. 35–61, and the decision of the
Administrative Law Judge, R. 17-34; the parties’ opening, response, and reply briefs [ECF Nos.
16–18]; Judge Gallagher’s Recommendation [ECF No. 23]; the objection [ECF No. 24]; and the

2

response to the objection [ECF No. 25]. The Court finds that the magistrate judge thoroughly
considered and addressed the administrative record, that he applied the correct standard of
review, and that he appropriately concluded that ALJ Musseman’s findings were supported by
substantial evidence in the record. I have considered the seven arguments Ms. Haffey raises in
the objection, but none of them convinces me that the magistrate judge erred. I further conclude
that there is nothing to be gained from a detailed recitation of the facts and law here, as I agree
with the analysis of the magistrate judge and have nothing of substance to add to it.
Order
Accordingly, the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 23] is
AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. The objection [ECF No. 24] is DENIED. The Court enters final
judgment dismissing this case, with each party to bear her or his own costs and fees.
DATED this 17th day of March, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge

3