Smith v. Colvin

Filing 26

ORDER denying 15 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 21 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; and adopting 24 Memorandum and Recommendation - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 3/3/2016. (Baker, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:14-CV-751-FL

HENRY MACK EVANS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). (DE 15 & 21). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), United States
Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones entered memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) wherein
it is recommended that the court deny plaintiff’s motion, grant defendant’s motion, and uphold
defendant’s decision denying benefits. Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the memorandum and
recommendation (“M&R”), and defendant did not file a response. In this posture, the matter is ripe
for ruling. For the reasons that follow, the court overrules plaintiff’s objection to the M&R and
upholds defendant’s decision denying benefits.
In addressing plaintiff’s objection to the M&R, the district court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Upon careful review of the record, “the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” Id.; see Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983).

In this case, plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge’s determination that there was
substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s evaluation of plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. (DE
25 at 4-5). Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to give proper weight to plaintiff’s subjective
complaints of pain, where the ALJ dismissed plaintiff’s complaints as inconsistent with the record.
(Id. at 5). Plaintiff argues he is unable to perform walking and standing required of light work due
to his left hip and leg pain. (Id.)
In so arguing, plaintiff points to no particular error on the magistrate judge’s part, but rather,
restates without substantive elaboration, and in some respects verbatim, arguments made in
plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. (see DE 16 at 7). Upon careful review of the
record, the court finds that the magistrate judge already has addressed the arguments raised by
plaintiff in his objections, and plaintiff raises no new issues for the court’s discussion. The
magistrate judge thoroughly addressed plaintiff’s arguments in the M&R, wherein he analyzes the
ALJ’s reasons for finding plaintiff’s subjective allegations not credible, as well as the import of the
objective medical evidence in the record. (See DE 24 at 11-14). “Subject only to the substantial
evidence requirement, it is the province of the [ALJ], and not the courts, to make credibility
determinations and to resolve ambiguities in the evidence.” Mickles v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 918, 929
(4th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the court adopts as its own the magistrate judge’s discussion of the
credibility and residual functional capacity determinations.

2

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the court ADOPTS the M&R, overrules plaintiff’s objection, and
upholds defendant’s decision. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (DE
15) is DENIED, and defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (DE 21) is GRANTED. The
clerk is DIRECTED to close the case file.
SO ORDERED this 3rd day of March, 2016.

LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

3