LANGLEY v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER

Filing 22

ORDER ACCEPTING 19 THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THEMAGISTRATE JUDGE By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (akr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
BART LANGLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) 1:16-cv-00064-JDL
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
After being denied Supplemental Security Income benefits, Plaintiff Bart
Langley sought review of the administrative law judge’s decision. ECF No. 1. United
States Magistrate Judge John H. Rich III filed his Report and Recommended Decision
(ECF No. 19) with the Court on December 29, 2016, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Langley filed an Objection to
the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 20) on January 12, 2017. The defendant filed
a Response to the plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 21) on January 20, 2107.
I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended
Decision, together with the entire record, and have made a de novo determination of
all matters adjudicated by it. I concur with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions as set
forth in his Recommended Decision and determine that no further proceeding is
necessary.

I note that Langley raised an issue in his objection to the Recommended
Decision regarding the psychological examination performed by Dr. Tennies. ECF
No. 20 at 3. Langley argues that the administrative law judge’s failure to address
Dr. Tennies’ opinion that Langley would be unreliable due to his chronic pain was
reversible error. Id. at 3-4.
In his Statement of Errors, Langley asserted that Dr. Tennies’ psychological
opinion stated that Langley’s ability to deal with stressors was compromised “as a
result of depression.” ECF No. 13 at 7. Dr. Tennies’ opinion on the effect of Langley’s
chronic pain on his reliability was not mentioned anywhere in the Statement of
Errors. See ECF No. 13. This argument has therefore been waived. Vining v. Astrue,
720 F. Supp. 2d 126, 128 (D. Me. 2010) (“the law is clear in this Circuit that failure
to raise an argument before the Magistrate Judge waives it before the District
Court”).
It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate
Judge is hereby ACCEPTED. The decision of the Social Security Administration
Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 10th day of February 2017

/s/ Jon D. Levy
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2