Dunlap v. Astrue

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrat e Judge (#19) is SUSTAINED, ADOPTED, AND INCORPORATED herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381-1383b, is AFFIRMED, and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate Judgment will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 1/27/2014. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KEITH R. DUNLAP,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:12CV1876 SNLJ (TCM)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III, filed November 20, 2013 (#19). Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636, the Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Mummert. In his report,
Magistrate Judge Mummert recommends that the Court affirm the decision of the Commissioner
denying plaintiff’s application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381-1383b, and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. The parties were given
fourteen days to file written objections. Plaintiff has filed written objections to the Report and
Recommendation.
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Court must
“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In his objections, plaintiff
renews arguments he made to the Magistrate Judge in favor of reversing the decision of the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Plaintiff contends that the ALJ’s decision is based on
“significantly inconsistent findings” on severe impairments and residual functional capacity.
Specifically, plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff has no physically severe

impairments is inconsistent with the limitation in the residual function capacity determination to
light work.
After review of the record in this matter, the Court concurs in the detailed Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and will affirm the decision of the Commissioner.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the United States Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (#19) is SUSTAINED, ADOPTED, AND INCORPORATED herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff’s
application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. § 1381-1383b, is AFFIRMED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
A separate Judgment will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 27th day of January, 2014.

___________________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE