Brunson v. Berryhill

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, granting 24 Motion to Affirm filed by Nancy A. Berryhill, denying 22 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Melissa V. Brunson, adopting 27 Report and Recommendations. A Final Judgment dismissing this case shall be entered. Signed by District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr on 2/22/2018 (cwl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
MELISSA V. BRUNSON

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-231-WHB-RHW

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
ACTING Commissioner of Social Security

DEFENDANT

OPINION AND ORDER
This

cause

is

before

the

Court

on

the

Report

and

Recommendation (“R and R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert
H. Walker.

In his R and R, Judge Walker recommends that the

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny Melissa V.
Brunson’s

application

for

Supplemental

Security

Disability Insurance Benefits be affirmed.

Income

and

After considering the

R and R1, the other pleadings in this case, as well as relevant
authorities, the Court finds the R & R should be adopted in its
entirety.

I. Discussion
Melissa

V.

Brunson

(“Brunson”)

filed

an

application

for

Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits.
Following the initial denial of her application, and an unfavorable

1

The parties were required to file objections to the R and
R on or before February 20, 2018. No objections were filed.

decision at the administrative level, Brunson sought review in this
Court.

On Motion of the Commissioner, Brunson’s case was remanded

to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.

On

remand, Brunson’s claims were heard by Administrative Law Judge L.
Dawn Pischek who, on October 26, 2015, entered a decision denying
Brunson’s SSI and DIB claims. The Appeals Counsel denied Brunson’s
request for review. Thereafter, on motion, this case was re-opened
and both parties filed competing motions with respect to the
Commissioner’s decision.
In her Motion for Summary Judgment, Brunson argues that the
Commissioner’s decision should be reversed based on the following
errors:

(1) the Commissioner erred by failing to appropriately

weigh the diagnoses and medical opinions of her treating and
examining doctors; (2) the Commissioner erred by making credibility
determinations that were adverse to her; and (3) the Commissioner’s
decision regarding evidence of decompensation was too restrictive,
and did not comport with governing regulations.

The Commissioner

moved to affirm her prior decision.
The matter came before United States Magistrate Judge Robert
H. Walker who, after considering the pleadings including Brunson’s
assignments of error, the administrative record, and relevant
authorities, found there was substantial evidence to support the
ALJ’s credibility determinations as well as her other decisions
regarding whether Brunson was disabled for the purposes of the

2

Social Security Act.
findings,

Judge

See R and R [Docket No. 27].

Walker

recommended

that

Based on these

Brunson’s

Motion

for

Summary Judgment be denied, and Defendant’s Motion to Affirm
Commissioner’s Decision be granted.

Id.

A district judge has authority to review a magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation on dispositive 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.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).

See

Thereafter, the district

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

Id.

No

objections to Judge Walker’s R and R have been filed.
Having reviewed the R and R, to which no objections were
filed, the Court agrees that Brunson’s Motion for Summary Judgment
should be denied, and Defendant’s Motion to Affirm Commissioner’s
Decision should be granted for the reasons stated by Judge Walker.
Accordingly, the Court will adopt Judge Walker’s R and R.

As the

granting of the Motion to Affirm Commissioner’s Decision will end
judicial review in this Court, a final judgment dismissing this
case will be entered.

II.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons:

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the February 6, 2018, Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker
[Docket No. 27], is hereby adopted as the ruling of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Docket No. 22] is hereby denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Affirm
Commissioner’s Decision [Docket No. 24] is hereby granted. A Final
Judgment dismissing this case shall be entered this day.
SO ORDERED this the 22nd day of February, 2018.

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

4