Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING in full the 20 Report and Recommendation, DENYING the plaintiff's 15 Motion for Judgment of Reversal, and GRANTING the defendant's 16 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. See Order for further details. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 7, 2017. (lcbah3)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BETTYE MICHELLE JACKSON, on behalf of M.J.J. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 16-cv-47 (BAH/DAR) Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Bettye Michelle Jackson, acting on behalf of her minor child, M.J.J., brought this action against the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), 1 challenging the denial of her claim for supplemental security income benefits on behalf of M.J.J., who was injured after being struck by a motorcycle. See Compl., ECF No. 1; see also Administrative Record (“AR”) at 14-29, ECF No. 11. An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denied the application, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that M.J.J. has “marked limitations” in at least two of six statutorily-defined functional domains, which would support a finding of disability. AR 23-29. After exhausting administrative remedies, the plaintiff filed suit in this Court, asserting that the ALJ’s determination was “not based upon substantial evidence” and “is the result of harmful errors of law.” Compl. ¶ 6. After filing, the case was randomly assigned to a magistrate judge for full case management. See Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 4. 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the Court substitutes as defendant the current Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Nancy A. Berryhill, for former Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin. 1 Before the Magistrate Judge, the plaintiff filed a motion for judgment of reversal, Pl.’s Mot. J. Reversal (“Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 15, and the SSA filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Def.’s Mot. J. Pleadings (“Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 16. The plaintiff alleges that the ALJ erred in two ways: first, that the ALJ erred in finding that M.J.J. does not have “marked limitations” in the following functional domains: “attending and completing tasks,” and “interacting and relating with others”; and second, that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate nonmedical opinion evidence in the Record. See Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Pl.’s Mot. at 8-17, ECF No. 15-2. On March 6, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the plaintiff’s motion be denied, and that the SSA’s motion be granted, since “the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and were made in accordance with applicable law.” See Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) at 10, ECF No. 20. The R&R cautioned the parties that failure to file a timely objection within 14 days of the parties’ receipt of the R&R could result in their waiving the right to appeal an order of the District Court adopting the recommendations. See id. at 24. No objection to the R&R has been filed, and the time to file such an objection has lapsed. See Local Civil Rule 72.3(b). Thus, any objections are deemed waived. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–55 (1985). The Court, upon independent consideration of the pending motions and the entire record herein, concurs with the recommendations made in the R&R. Accordingly it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 20, is ADOPTED in full; and it is further ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment of Reversal, ECF No. 15, is DENIED; and it is further 2 ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Record, ECF No. 16, is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court close this case. SO ORDERED. Date: 2017.04.07 10:08:14 -04'00' _________________________ BERYL A. HOWELL Chief Judge 3

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?