Foley et al v. Astrue
Filing
15
ORDER ADOPTING re 12 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 3/15/2013. (loh)
FILED
U. S. DtSTRot CJ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 70R'
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF24.
SAVANNAH DIVISION
)
TAYLOR JEANE FOLEY,
cLER
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. CV412-016
V.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 12), to which objections have been
filed (Doc. 14) . After a careful de novo review of the
record, the Court finds Plaintiff's objections to be
without merit. Accordingly, the report and recommendation
is ADOPTED
as the Court's opinion in this case and
Plaintiff's appeal
is DISMISSED.
The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to close this case.
In her objections, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate
Judge's finding that she does not meet Listing 112.05 and
Listing 12.05, and the resulting decision that she retains
sufficient residual functional capacity so as to not be
disabled. (Doc. 14 at 1-2.) The ALJ determined that,
while Plaintiff did have a subaverage IQ score, several
other factors mitigated her listing as mentally retarded.
(Doc. 12 at 8.) Substantial evidence shows that claimant
had no problem sustaining attention during sports, or
focusing to finish assigned tasks, or completing class
assignments. (Id. at 8.) Dr. Nagelberg, who evaluated
Plaintiff,
diagnosed
Plaintiff
to
have
borderline
intellectual functioning, not mental retardation. (Id. at
9.) The Court cannot substitute its judgment for the AL's
where that decision is supported by substantial evidence,
as is the case here.
1356, 1357-58
See Barnes v. Sullivan, 932 F.2d
(11th Cir. 1991) .
Plaintiff has failed to
satisfy her burden of proving the disability, rendering the
denial of benefits by the ALJ proper.
SO ORDERED this
/I2"
day of March 2013.
WILLIAM T. MOORE, J
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
2
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?