Lee v. Astrue

Filing 68

ORDER denying 52 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, granting 63 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and adopting 66 Memorandum and Recommendations. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 9/24/2012. A copy of the order was mailed to the pro se plaintff. (Sawyer, D.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR TIlE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DMSION

No.5:11-CV-374-D

CLIFFORD LEON LEE, n,
Plaintiff,

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

)

)
)

)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On August 16, 2012, Magistrate Judge Webb issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R") [D.E. 66]. In that M&R, Judge Webb recommended that the court deny plaintiff's motion
for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 52], grant defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings
[D.E. 63], and affirm defendant's final decision. On September 4,2012, plaintiff filed objections
to the M&R [D.E. 67].

"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 plaintiff's 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
court's review of the Commissioner's final decision regarding disability benefits 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. Barnhm1, 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), abrogated:by implication
on other grounds:by Black &Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822 (2003). The court may
not reweigh the evidence or substitute its 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 Commissioner analyzed the relevant evidence
and sufficiently explained his fmdings and rationale concerning the evidence.

See,~,

Sterling

Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438,439-40 (4th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff's objections [D.E. 67] simply restate the arguments made to Judge Webb. The
objections merit no further discussion beyond Judge Webb's analysis in the M&R, and the court
adopts the M&R [D.E. 66]. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to prove that the Administrative Law
Judge was biased. Thus, plaintiff's objections to the M&R [D.E. 67] are OVERRULED, plaintiff's
motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 52] is DENIED, defendant's motion for judgment on
the pleadings [D.E. 63] is GRANTED, and defendant's final decision is AFFIRMED.

2

SO ORDERED. This

14 day of September 2012.

3