TAYLOR v. BERRYHILL
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 10/25/2019. (lckbj2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JEREMIAH TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 18-cv-0316 (KBJ)
MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Jeremiah Taylor, through his mother, applied to the Commissioner of
Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) for supplemental social security
income benefits in 2013, claiming that he was disabled due to his diagnosis of
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), oppositional/defiant disorder
(“ODD”), major depressive disorder (“MDD”), mood disorder, and learning disorder.
(AR, ECF No. 4-3, at 5–6, 14–15; ECF 4-8 at 57–58.) 1 In January of 2017, an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing on Taylor’s application, and
ultimately determined that Taylor is not disabled under the Social Security Act. Taylor
then filed the instant lawsuit, requesting that this Court reverse the ALJ’s denial
decision and grant him benefits. (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.)
On February 13, 2018, this Court referred this matter to a Magistrate Judge for
full case management. (See Min. Order of Feb. 13, 2018.) On June 13, 2018, Taylor
Page numbers herein refer to those that the Court’s electronic case filing system automatically
assigns.
1
filed a motion asking the Court to either reverse the Commissioner’s decision or remand
this matter back to the agency for a new hearing, arguing that the ALJ’s decision is not
supported by substantial evidence and that decision is erroneous as a matter of law.
(See Pl.’s Mot. for J. of Reversal, ECF No. 7, at 1.) Thereafter, on October 1, 2018,
Defendant filed a motion for affirmance of the ALJ’s decision, arguing that Taylor
failed to meet his burden of establishing that he was entitled to supplemental security
income, and that “substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that his impairments
. . . were not severe enough to functionally equal the clinical requirements of any Listed
Impairment.” (Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Her Mot. for J. of Affirmance & in Opp’n to
Pl.’s Mot. for J. of Reversal, ECF No. 12, at 1).
Before this Court at present is the Report and Recommendation that the assigned
Magistrate Judge, G. Michael Harvey, has filed regarding Taylor’s motion for reversal
and Defendant’s motion for affirmance. (See R. & R., ECF No. 17.) 2 The Report and
Recommendation reflects Magistrate Judge Harvey’s opinion that Taylor’s motion for
reversal or remand should be denied, and that Defendant’s motion for affirmance should
be granted. (See id. at 1–2.) Specifically, Magistrate Judge Harvey finds that
substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Taylor did not have marked
impairments in either of the domains of functioning that he challenges on appeal. (See
id. at 14.) Magistrate Judge Harvey further finds that the ALJ “properly explained that
he did not credit Plaintiff’s subjective claims as to the severity of his symptoms because
they were contradicted both by other aspects of testimony of Plaintiff and of his mother
and by other objective evidence in the record.” (Id. at 15.)
2
The Report and Recommendation, which is 24 pages long, is attached hereto as Appendix A.
2
In addition to articulating these conclusions, Magistrate Judge Harvey’s Report
and Recommendation also advises the parties that either party may file written
objections to the Report and Recommendation, which must include the portions of the
findings and recommendations to which each objection is made and the basis for each
such objection. (Id. at 24.) The Report and Recommendation further advises the
parties that failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of further review of the
matters addressed in the Report and Recommendation. (Id.) Under this Court’s local
rules, any party who objects to a Report and Recommendation must file a written
objection with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of the party’s receipt of the Report
and Recommendation. LCvR 72.3(b). The due date for objections has passed, and none
have been filed.
This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Harvey’s report and agrees with his
thorough analysis and conclusions. Thus, the Court will ADOPT the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reversal will be
DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion for Affirmance will be GRANTED.
A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
DATE: October 25, 2019
Ketanji Brown Jackson
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
United States District 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?