Rook v. Colvin

Filing 27

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 20 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; adopting 23 Memorandum and Recommendations. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 2/27/2017. (Briggeman, N.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DMSION
No, 2:16-CV-2-D

MARK A. ROOK,
Plaintiff,

v.

)
)
)
)

)

ORDER

)
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant.
)

On January 23, 2017, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 23]. In that M&R, Judge Numbers recommended that this court
deny plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 16], grant defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 20], and affirm defendant's final decision. On February 6, 2017,
plaintiff filed objections to the M&R [D.E. 26]. Defendant did not respond.
"The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the magistrate judge's report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
towhichobjectionismade." Diamond v. GolonialLife&Accidentlns. Co., 416 F.3d310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (emphasis, alteration, and 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 itselfthat
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 plaintiffs objections. As for those
portions of the 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 of judicial review of a fmal 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. Sullivm1, 907 F.2d 1453,

1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Substantial evidence is evidence which a "reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quotation
omitted).

It "consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be less than a

preponderance." Smith v. Chater, 99 F.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 1996). This court may not re-weigh
the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. See, ~' 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 Commissioner analyzed the relevant evidence and
sufficiently explained her findings and rationale concerning the evidence. See, e.g., Sterling
Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438,439-40 (4th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff's objections restate the arguments made to Judge Numbers concerning plaintiff's
RFC. Compare [D.E. 19] 7-12, with [D.E. 26] 3-6. However, both Judge Numbers and the ALJ
applied the proper legal standards. Moreover, substantial evidence supports the ALJ' s analysis. See
M&R at 2-14. Accordingly, the court adopts the M&R and overrules the objections.
In sum, plaintiff's objections to the M&R [D.E. 26] are OVERRULED, plaintiff's motion
for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 16] is DENIED, defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings [D.E. 20] is GRANTED, defendant's final decision is AFFIRMED, and this action is
DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the case.

2

SO ORDERED. This 1.1_ day of February 2017.

3