Taylor v. Astrue

Filing 35

ORDER denying 27 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and granting 29 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 12/30/2011. (Sawyer, D.)

IN TIlE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR TIlE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION

No.5:1O-CV-512-D

MARY KEARNEY TAYLOR,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)
)

v.

)

ORDER

)

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

)
)
)
)

Defendant.

)

On November 7,2011, Magistrate Judge Webb issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R") [D.E. 32]. In that M&R, Judge Webb recommended that the court deny plaintiffs
motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 27], grant defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings [D.E. 29], and affirm the final decision of defendant. On November 21, 2011, plaintiff
filed objections to the M&R [D.E. 33]. On November 25, 2011, defendant responded [D.E. 34] to
plaintiff s 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 removed) (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. Barnhl:&tl, 296 F.3d 287,290 (4th Cir. 2002); Hays v.

Sulliv~

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, e.g., Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438,439-40
(4th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff restates the arguments made to Judge Webb. The court has reviewed the record and
the arguments de novo. The arguments merit no further discussion beyond Judge Webb's cogent
analysis in the M&R, and the court adopts the M&R [D.E. 32]. Thus, plaintiff's objections to the
M&R [D.E. 33] are OVERRULED, plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 27] is

2

DENIED, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 29] is GRANTED, and
defendant's final decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. This ~ day ofDecember 2011.

3