Young v. Social Security Administration

Filing 23

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Affirm; adopting 18 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 11/2/2018. (CL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
JACQUELINE WILLIAM YOUNG
V.

PLAINTIFF
CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-243-CWR-FKB

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

DEFENDANT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Jacqueline William Young filed an application for divorced widow’s benefits in April
2013. Her application was denied by the Social Security Administration because Young did not
meet the threshold of 10 consecutive years of marriage, as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.336(a)(2),
to receive divorced widow’s benefits. During the appeal hearing on the denial of benefits, the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that Young and her husband, Harry, were married
on November 10, 1969 and divorced on June 26, 1979.
United States Magistrate Judge Keith Ball entered a Report and Recommendation on this
matter on July 31, 2018. Docket No. 18. Young objects to the findings and recommendations; she
asserts that she was married on May 10, 1969, and the ALJ’s determination of her date of marriage
was factually inaccurate. See Docket No. 19. As noted in the Report and Recommendation, there
is no marriage certificate to confirm the date of marriage between Harry and Jacqueline Young.
On September 10, 2018, Young filed a motion requesting an extension of time to
supplement her objections, stating that she spoke to an attorney who was going to obtain a copy
of her marriage certificate. See Docket No. 22. The Court granted Young an additional 30 days,
until October 11, 2018, to supplement her objections to the Report and Recommendation. It is now
well past 30 days and Young has not supplemented her initial objections.

The ALJ made the determination that Young and her husband were married on November
10, 1969 based on Young’s sworn statement in her request for reconsideration to the Social
Security Administration. 1 This Court’s role is limited to reviewing the Commissioner’s denial to
see if the decision was supported by substantial evidence; it is not this Court’s role to resolve
conflicts in evidence. See Anthony v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 289, 295 (5th Cir. 1992). For that reason,
the Report and Recommendation is hereby adopted.
Accordingly, the determination of the Social Security Administration is affirmed and this
case is dismissed with prejudice. A separate Final Judgment will issue this day.
SO ORDERED, this the 2nd day of November, 2018.

s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Several different dates were provided to the ALJ – all by the claimant, and multiple dates presented were submitted
under penalty of perjury. The ALJ cannot be faulted with choosing one of the dates, which was supported by
substantial evidence.