Brown v. Astrue

Filing 37

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 35 Memorandum and Recommendations; denying 28 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 31 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical information. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 3/7/2012. (Edwards, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

EASTERN DNISION

No.4:11-CV-18-D

MAURlCEBROWN,
Plaintiff,

)
)

)

)

)

~

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

ORDER

)
)
)
)

)
)

On January 23, 2012, Magistrate Judge Gates issued a Memorandwn and Recommendation
("M&R") [D.E. 35]. In the M&R, Judge Gates recommended that the court deny Maurice Brown's
("Brown" or "plaintiff') motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 28], grant Michael J. Astrue's
("Commissioner" or "defendant") motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E.31], and affIrm the
fInal decision of Commissioner. M&R 1, 14. On February 6,2012, plaintiff objected to the M&R
[D.E.36]. The Commissioner did not respond to plaintiffs objections.
"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) (emphasis 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
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 plaintiffs 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 disputed portions of the M&R. Under the Social
Security Act, a district court reviewing the Commissioner's final decision to award or deny disability
benefits considers only whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's factual findings
and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards. See, st&, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);
Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287,290 (4th Cir. 2002); Hays v. Sullivan, 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 reweigh 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 his findings and rationale
concerning the evidence. See, ~ Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438, 439-40
(4th Cir. 1997).
Brown argues that Judge Gates erroneously found that substantial evidence supported the
ALl's credibility assessment of Brown's pain statements, Pl.'s Obj. [D.E. 36] 1-3, and that Judge
Gates erroneously analyzed how the ALJ weighed Brown's treating physician's testimony. Id.3-4.
The court will not re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or
substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585,589 (4th Cir.
1996); see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). As for plaintiff's objections, the court concludes that the ALJ
adhered to the law in his decisional process and complied with the law.

In sum, this court agrees with Judge Gates's thorough analysis and adopts this analysis as the
2

court's own. Plaintiff's objections to the M&R [D.E. 36] are OVERRULED, plaintiff's motion for
judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 28] is DENIED, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings
[D.E. 31] is GRANTED, and defendant's final decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. This ~ day of March 2012.

Chief United States District Judge

3