Laird v. Astrue

Filing 35

ORDER denying 28 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, granting 30 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and adopting 33 Memorandum and Recommendations. The defendant's final decision is affirmed. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 10/20/11. (Tripp, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

NORTHERN DMSION

No.2:1O-CV-62-D

DEBRA LAIRD,
Plaintiff,

)

)
)
)

)

~

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

ORDER

)
)
)
)
)
)

On September 13, 2011, Magistrate Judge Webb issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 33]. In thatM&R, Judge Webb recommended that the court deny
plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 28], grant defendant's motion for judgment
on the pleadings [D.E. 30], and affirm the final decision of defendant. On September 26,2011,
plaintiff filed objections to the M&R [D.E. 34].
"The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of
those portions ofthe [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (alteration in original) (emph8sisremoved) (quotation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
Absent a timely objection, "a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation." Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation omitted).
The court has reviewed the M&R, the record, and plaintiff's objections. As for those
portions ofthe M&R to which plaintiff made no objection, the court is satisfied that there is no clear
error on the face of the record.

The court has reviewed de novo the portions of the M&R to which plaintiff objected. The
scope ofjudicial review of a final decision regarding disability benefits under the Social Security
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the
Commissioner's factual findings and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards.
See,

~,

Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287,290 (4th Cir. 2002); Hays v. SullivOO:, 907 F.2d 1453,

1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Substantial evidence is "evidence which a reasoning mind would accept as
sufficient to support a particular conclusion. It consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence
but may be somewhat less than a preponderance." Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640,642 (4th Cir.
1966).
This court may not re-weigh the evidence or substitute

i~

judgment for that of the

Commissioner. See, e.g., Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456. Rather, in determining whether substantial
evidence supports the Commissioner's decision, the court's review is limited to whether the
Administrative Law Judge ("AU") analyzed the relevant evidence and sufficiently explained his
findings and rationale concerning the evidence.

See,~,

Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers,

131 F.3d 438,439-40 (4th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff argues that Judge Webb failed to conduct a full review, P1.'s Obj. 5-6, that Judge
Webb failed to consider plaintiff's argument that the AU did not give appropriate weight to
physicians' opinions, id. 6--9, that Judge Webb failed to consider plaintiff's argument that the ALJ
failed to include a proper hypothetical question, id. 9-12, and that the ALJ failed to apply Craig v.
Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1996). Id. 12-16.
The court will not re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or
substitute its judgment for that ofthe Commissioner. Craig, 76 F.3d at 589; see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
As for plaintiff's objections, the court concludes that the AU adhered to the law in his decisional
2

process (including his hypothetical to the vocational expert and his treatment of physicians'
opinions) and complied with Craig, 76 F.3d at 589-96.
In sum, this court agrees with Judge Webb's thorough analysis and adopts this analysis as

the court's o'\W. Plaintiffs objections to the M&R [D.E. 34] are OVERRULED, plaintiffs motion
for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 28] is DENIED, defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings [D.E. 30] is GRANTED, and defendant's final decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. This..1O. day of October 2011.

3