Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Commissioner of Social Security against Kenneth D. Taylor, Jr. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 11/20/20. (ncb)

Case: 1:20-cv-00014-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 11/20/20 1 of 2 PageID #: 711

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION

KENNETH D. TAYLOR, JR.

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 1:20CV00014-JMV

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

DEFENDANT

FINAL JUDGMENT
This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
for judicial review of an unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration regarding an application for supplemental security income. The parties have
consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Court,
having reviewed the record, the administrative transcript, the briefs of the parties, and the
applicable law and having heard oral argument, finds as follows, to-wit:
For the reasons stated in the Commissioner’s brief and echoed by the Court on the record
at the conclusion of the parties’ oral argument during a hearing held in this matter on November
19, 2020, the Court finds there is no reversible error, and the Commissioner’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence in the record.1 Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner is

1

Judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is limited to two inquiries: (1) whether substantial evidence in
the record supports the Commissioner’s decision and (2) whether the decision comports with proper legal
standards. See Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990). “Substantial evidence is ‘such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Greenspan v.
Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct.
1420, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971)). “It is more than a mere scintilla, and less than a preponderance.”
Spellman v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Moore v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 901, 904 (5th Cir.
1990)). “A decision is supported by substantial evidence if ‘credible evidentiary choices or medical
findings support the decision.’” Salmond v. Berryhill, 892 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2018) (citations
omitted). The court must be careful not to “reweigh the evidence or substitute . . . [its] judgment” for that

Case: 1:20-cv-00014-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 11/20/20 2 of 2 PageID #: 712

hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this, the 20th day of November, 2020.

/s/ Jane M. Virden
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

of the ALJ, see Hollis v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1378, 1383 (5th Cir. 1988), even if it finds that the evidence
preponderates against the Commissioner's decision. Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 1994);
Harrell v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 1988).

2