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)

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