Webb v. Colvin

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 1. Plaintiff's objections (Doc. No. 20 ) to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's April 16, 2014 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. 2. Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's April 16, 2014 Report a nd Recommendation (Doc. No. 18 ) is ADOPTED. 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 10 ) is DENIED. 4. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 12 ) is GRANTED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 9/18/2014. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Kristi Ann Webb,

Civil No. 13-1491 (DWF/SER)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Kristi Ann Webb’s (“Plaintiff”)
objections (Doc. No. 20) to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau’s April 16, 2014 Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 18) insofar as it recommends that: (1) Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment be denied; and (2) Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment be
granted. On April 23, 2014, Defendant filed a Non-Objection Response to the R&R.
(Doc. No. 19.) On May 8, 2014, Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff’s objections.
(Doc. No. 21.)
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the
arguments and submissions of counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Rule 72.2(b). The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and
precisely set forth in the R&R and is incorporated by reference for purposes of Plaintiff’s

objections. Having carefully reviewed the record, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s
objections offer no basis for departure from the Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff initiated this action seeking judicial review of Defendant’s denial of her
application for Social Security disability benefits. (See generally Doc. No. 1, Compl.)
Plaintiff generally objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that her motion for
summary judgment be denied and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted.
(See generally Doc. No. 20.) In particular, Plaintiff maintains that: (1) supplemental
physician opinion evidence, submitted to the Appeals Council after her administrative
hearing, supports her claim; (2) the ALJ developed her own medical theory; and (3) the
ALJ failed to accord proper weight to the opinions of medical experts, including
Plaintiff’s treating physicians. (See id. at 1-7.) It appears from the R&R that the
Magistrate Judge reviewed all of the evidence in question, and, having independently
considered the same, the undersigned agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determination of
the issues raised by the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. (See generally
Doc. No. 18.) The Court thus concludes, as did Magistrate Judge Rau, that Defendant is
entitled to summary judgment in this matter. Consequently, the Court grants Defendant’s
motion and denies Plaintiff’s motion.
Based upon the de novo review of the record and all of the arguments and
submissions of the parties, and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises,
the Court hereby enters the following:

2

ORDER
1.

Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. No. [20]) to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau’s

April 16, 2014 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau’s April 16, 2014 Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. [18]) is ADOPTED.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [10]) is DENIED.

4.

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. [12]) is

GRANTED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: September 18, 2014

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

3