Armstead v. Colvin
ORDER denying 19 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 22 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 7/16/2014. (Edwards, S.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
BARBARA K. ARMSTEAD,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
On June 18, 2014, Magistrate Judge Jones issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R") [D.E. 26]. In that M&R, Judge Jones recommended that the court deny plaintiff's motion
for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 19], grant defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings
[D.E. 22], and affirm defendant's final decision. On June 26,2014, plaintiff filed objections to the
M&R [D.E. 27]. On July 3, 2014, defendant responded to plaintiff's objections [D.E. 28].
"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
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
scope of judicial 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 fmdings and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards.
Walls v. Barnhm:t, 296 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2002); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453,
1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind "might accept as
sufficient to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quotation
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 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 her fmdings and rationale concerning the evidence. See,
Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438, 43~0 (4th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff's objections restate the arguments made to Judge Jones. See [D.E. 27] 3-5.
However, both Judge Jones and the ALJ applied the proper legal standard. Moreover, substantial
evidence supports the ALJ' s analysis. See [D .E. 26] 6-15. Accordingly, the court adopts the M&R,
and overrules the objections.
In sum, plaintiff's objections to the M&R [D.E. 27] are OVERRULED, plaintiff's motion
for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 19] is DENIED, defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings [D.E. 22] is GRANTED, defendant's final decision is AFFIRMED, and this action is
DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the case.
SO ORDERED. This Jladay of July 2014.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?