Rodgers v. Colvin

Filing 32

ORDER DENYING 22 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; GRANTING 26 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; and ADOPTING 29 Memorandum and Recommendation. In sum, plaintiff's objections to the M&R 30 are OVERRULED, plaintiff's mo tion for judgment on the pleadings 22 is DENIED, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings 26 is GRANTED, defendant's final decision is AFFIRMED, and this action is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the case. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 2/13/15. (O'Brien, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:13-CV-345-D

KATHERINE E. RODGERS,
Plaintiff,

v.

)
)
)
)

)

ORDER

)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant.
)

On January 15,2015, Magistrate Judge Jones issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R") [D.E. 29]. In that M&R, Judge Jones recommended that the court deny plaintiff's motion
for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 22], grant defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings
[D.E. 26], and affirm defendant's final decision. On January 26, 2015, plaintiff filed objections to
the M&R [D.E. 30]. On February 4, 2015, defendant responded to the objections [D.E. 31].
"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) (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 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 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 fmdings and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards.
See,~.

Reid v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 769 F.3d 861, 865 (4th Cir. 2014); 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 reasonable mind "might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389,401 (1971)(quotationomitted). lt"consistsofmorethanamere
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,~.

Walls, 296 F.3d at 290; 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,~.

Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438,

439-40 (4th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff's objections restate the arguments made to Judge Jones concerning the ALJ's
analysis of plaintiff's VA rating and her OAF scores. See [D.E. 30] 2-6; [D.E. 23] 13-17. However,
both Judge Jones and the ALJ applied the proper legal standard concerning these issues. Moreover,
substantial evidence supports the ALJ's analysis. See [D.E. 29]; ALJ Decision [D.E. 15] 21-26.
Accordingly, the court adopts the M&R and overrules the objections.
In sum, plaintiff's objections totheM&R [D.E. 30] are OVERRULED, plaintiff's motion for
judgment on the pleadings (D.E. 22] is DENIED, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings
2

[D.E. 26] is GRANTED, defendant's ftnal decision is AFFIRMED, and this action is DISMISSED.
The clerk shall close the case.
SO ORDERED. This \.!day ofFebruary 2015.

3