Campbell v. Saul

Filing 20

FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Andrew Saul against Cleveland Campbell, Jr. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 11/18/20. (ncb)

Download PDF
Case: 3:20-cv-00046-JMV Doc #: 20 Filed: 11/18/20 1 of 2 PageID #: 619 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION CLEVELAND CAMPBELL, JR. PLAINTIFF V. NO. 3:20CV00046-JMV ANDREW SAUL 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 applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits and 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 announced by the Court on the record at the conclusion of the parties’ oral argument during a hearing held in this matter on November 10, 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 hereby AFFIRMED. 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. Case: 3:20-cv-00046-JMV Doc #: 20 Filed: 11/18/20 2 of 2 PageID #: 620 SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this, the 18th day of November, 2020. /s/ Jane M. Virden U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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 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). As pointed out during the hearing, the RFC determination in this case is supported by substantial evidence, and there was no legal error. The arguments presented by Plaintiff essentially call upon the Court to impermissibly reweigh the evidence. 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?