Bennett v. Colvin

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 32 Memorandum and Recommendations; DENYING 27 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; and GRANTING 29 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. In sum, plaintiff's objections to the M&R 33 are OVERRULED, plaintiff's m otion for judgment on the pleadings 27 is DENIED, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings 29 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 1/27/15. (O'Brien, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DMSION
No. 5:13-CV-871-D
CARL J. BENNETT,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)

v.

)

ORDER

)

CAROLYNW. COLVIN,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
)

Defendant.

)

On December 16, 2014, Magistrate Judge Gates issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R") [D.E. 32]. In that M&R, Judge Gates recommended that the court deny plaintiff's motion
for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 27], grant defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings
[D.E. 29], and affirm defendant's final decision. On December 30,2014, plaintiff filed objections
to the M&R [D.E. 33]. Defendant did not file a response.
"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 fmdings or recommendations
towhichobjectionismade." Diamond v. Colonial Life &Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d310, 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 findings 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. Sullivm1, 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) (quotation omitted). It "consists of more than a
mere scintilla of evidence but maybe less than a preponderance." Smith v. Chater, 99 F.3d635, 638
(4th Cir. 1996). This court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the
Commissioner.

See,~,

Craigv. Chater, 76 F.3d 585,589 (4thCir. 1996); Hays, 907 F.2dat 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 findings and rationale concerning the evidence. See,

~'

Sterling

Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438,439-40 (4th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff objects that Judge Gates incorrectly analyzed Bird v. Comm'rofSoc. Sec., 699 F.3d
337 (4th Cir. 2012), in failing to reject the ALJ's analysis of the Veterans Administration rating of
unemployability. This court disagrees with plaintiffs objection and agrees with Judge Gates's
analysis of Bird and the record. See M&R ~11. Thus, the court overrules the objection. Likewise,
the court overrules plaintiffs objection concerning his RFC. Both Judge Gates and the ALJ applied
the proper legal standard and adequately explained their findings. See M&R 11-13. Moreover,
substantial evidence supports the ALJ' s analysis. See id. Accordingly, the court adopts the M&R
and overrules the objections.
2

In sum, plaintiff's objections to the M&R [D.E. 33] are OVERRULED, plaintiff's motion
for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 27] is DENIED, defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings [D.E. 29] is GRANTED, defendant's final decision is AFFIRMED, and this action is
DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the case.
SO ORDERED. This 1., day of January 2015.

SC.DEVERID
J
Chief United States District Judge

3