Reid v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

ORDER denying 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 14 Defendant's Motion for An Order to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner; adopting Report and Recommendations re 17 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Ju dge. Plaintiff's Objection to the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 18] is hereby overruled. A Final Judgment dismissing Plaintiff's appeal shall be entered this day. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 9-8-11 (Lewis, Nijah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
MELISSA J. REID

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-cv-237-WHB-LRA

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security

DEFENDANT

OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff, Melissa J.
Reid’s (“Reid”), Objection to the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson.

The Court,

having considered the Objection,1 the record in this case, as
well as governing authorities, finds the Objection should be
denied.

I.

Discussion

On August 15, 2011, Judge Anderson entered a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) concluding
Judge

(“ALJ”)

had

applied

the

that

correct

the

Administrative

legal

standards

Law
when

determining that Reid had not established her impairments were of
sufficient severity to be disabling, and thereafter denying her
applications
1

for

Disability

Insurance

Benefits

and/or

Defendant has informed the Court that he will not file
a Response to Reid’s Objection, and that he has no objections
to the Report and Recommendation. See Resp. [Docket No. 19].

Supplemental

Security

Income,

and

supported the ALJ’s decision.
timely objected.

that

substantial

evidence

See R&R [Docket No. 17].

Reid

Under controlling standards, a district judge

has the authority

to

review

a

magistrate

judge’s

report

and

recommendation on disposive motions, and is required to make a de
novo determination of any portion of a report and recommendation
to which a specific written objection is made.
636(b); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).

See 28 U.S.C. §

Thereafter, the district judge may

accept, reject, or modify the recommendation of the magistrate;
receive further evidence in the case; or return the matter to the
magistrate with further instructions.

Id.

In the case sub judice, Reid objects to the R&R arguing that
Judge

Anderson

erred

in

(1)

maintaining

that

consulting

psychologist, Dr. Kenneth Schneider (“Schneider”), had diagnosed
her

with

“mild

mental

retardation

secondary

to

depression”

because he had actually separately diagnosed her with depression
on Axis I and mental retardation on Axis II; (2) citing Randall
v. Astrue, 570 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 2009), for the proposition that
“[s]imply having a low I.Q. score is not enough to indicate
disabling

mental

retardation

...”

because

that

case

is

distinguishable on its facts; (3) maintaining that the ALJ has
discretion to assess the validity of I.Q. scores; (4) confirming
the ALJ’s speculation regarding whether her low I.Q. score was
attributable

to

depression

and/or

2

the

effects

of

medication

and/or other causes; (5) suggesting that the ALJ could discount
the credibility of Schneider’s report because it was based on an
one-time-only examination; (6) suggesting that her prior employer
had not found her unable to work based on her alleged mental
impairments; (7) suggesting that the ALJ did not have a duty to
obtain an expert opinion on medical equivalence; (8) suggesting
that she had argued that the ALJ had failed to give controlling
weight to the medical opinions because she had not made such
argument;

(9)

limitations

finding

beyond

that

those

her

obesity

incorporated

in

did

produce

ALJ’s

the

not

residual

function capacity assessment (“RFC”) because the ALJ’s RFC lacked
support in the record and/or was based on a flawed hypothetical
given to the vocational expert during her administrative hearing;
(10) maintaining that there was no objective medical evidence
that

either

her

depression

or

mental

retardation

produced

limitations that impeded her ability to work; and (11) asserting
that

there

determination

was

substantial

that

she

could

evidence
return

to

supporting
work

the

because

ALJ’s

the

ALJ

relied on potential jobs that were outside reasoning level 1 of
the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.

After conducting a de

novo review of the subject portions of the R&R in light of the
objections,

the

Court

finds

supported by applicable law.

the

R&R

is

well

reasoned

and

The Court additionally finds that

the decision of the ALJ was supported by substantial evidence and

3

contained no legal errors that would require the Court to reverse
that decision.

Accordingly, the Court will adopt the R&R over

Reid’s objections.

III.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 17] is hereby accepted and
adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection to the
Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 18] is hereby overruled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Docket No. 10] is hereby denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for an Order
Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner [Docket No. 14] is
hereby granted.

A Final Judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s appeal

shall be entered this day.
SO ORDERED this the 8th day of September, 2011.

s/ William H. Barbour, Jr.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4