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)

Download PDF
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?