Knickrehm v. Colvin

Filing 23

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 18 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; adopting 21 Memorandum and Recommendations. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 2/20/2017. (Briggeman, N.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:15-CV-625-D

ROXANNE LOUISE KNICKREHM,
Plaintiff,
~

)
)
)
)

)

ORDER

)
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant.
)
On January 10, 2017, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R") [D.E. 21]. In that M&R, Judge Numbers recommended that this court deny plaintiff's
motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E.16], grant defendant's motion for judgment on the·
pleadings [D.E. 18], and affirm defendant's final decision. On January 24, 2017, plaintiff filed
objections to the M&R [D.E. 22]. Defendant did not respond.
"The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination ofthose
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)
(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 ofjudicial 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.
See, M.., Walls v. Bamhm:t, 296 F.3d287, 290 (4th Cir. 2002); Hays v. Sulliv~ 907 F.2d 1453, 1456
(4th Cir. 1990). Substantial evidence is evidence which a "reasonable mind inight 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 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, M.., 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, e.g., Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438,
439-40 (4th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff's objections essentially restate the arguments made to Judge Numbers concerning the
ALJ' s analysis oflistings 12.04 and 12.06, the weight the ALJ accorded plaintiffs treating physicians,
plaintiff's credibility, and the ALJ's residual functional capacity determination. Compare [D.E. 17]
4-13 with [D.E. 22] 2-16. Plaintiff also objects that Judge Numbers erred in analyzing the weight the
ALJ gave to plaintiff's treating psychologist and in analyzing the ALJ' s failure to credit the statements
of plaintiff and plaintiff's spouse. See [D.E. 22] 5-11. Both Judge Numbers and the ALJ applied the
proper legal standards, and, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's analysis. See M&R 8-18.
Accordingly, the court adopts the M&R and overrules the objections.

2

In sum, plaintiff's objections to the M&R [D.E. 22] are OVERRULED, plaintiff's motion for

judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 16] is DENIED, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings
[D.E. 18] is GRANTED, defendant's final decision is AFFIRMED, and this action is DISMISSED.
The clerk shall close the case.
SO ORDERED. This _2.Q_ day ofFebruary 2017.

3