WRIGHT v. COLVIN

Filing 26

ORDER adopting 24 Report and Recommendation. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE MAURICE M PAUL on 9/22/2015. The decision of the Commissioner, denying benefits, is affirmed. (kdm)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
LESTER WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00152-MP-GRJ

CAROLYN W COLVIN,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation dated June 16, 2015. (Doc. 24 ). The parties have been furnished a copy of the
Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant
to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed objections at Doc. 25. I
have made a de novo review based on those objections.
Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections, I
have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. The plaintiff in this
case claimed that he “could not perform any work activity.” Thus, when judging plaintiff’s
credibility, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) noted how the medical record and the daily
activities of the plaintiff were inconsistent with that statement.
Plaintiff tries to convince the Court that the ALJ’s statement went beyond merely
considering credibility. For example, in his objections, the plaintiff asserts that, by rejecting that
statement, the ALJ had decided “to determine not whether the claimant can perform Substantial
Gainful Activity (SGA), defined by the 11th Circuit as full time work; but instead to determine

Page 2 of 2

whether plaintiff Wright has the ‘inability to perform any work activity.’” Doc. 25, p. 1. That is,
plaintiff pretends that this means that the ALJ was holding that you are not disabled unless you
have a complete inability to work. The full ALJ opinion makes clear that the ALJ was not
applying such a standard. Instead, the ALJ applied all steps in the sequential evaluation,
including finding a limited residual functional capacity.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated
by reference in this order.

2.

The decision of the Commissioner, denying benefits, is affirmed.

DONE AND ORDERED this

22nd day of September, 2015

s/Maurice M. Paul
Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 1:14-cv-00152-MP-GRJ