Williams v. Berryhill

Filing 30

ORDER: plaintiff's objections to the M&R 27 are OVERRULED, plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings 21 is DENIED, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings 23 is GRANTED, defendant's final decision is AFFIRMED, and this action is DISMISSED. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 6/19/2018. (Jenkins, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTII CAROLINA
WESTERN DMSION
No. 5:17-CV-408-D

MAVIS WILLIAMS,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)

)

~

ORDER

)

NANCY A. BERRYIDLL,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
)

Defendant.

)

On May 17,2018, Magistrate Judge Jones issued a Memorandum and Recommendation

("M&R") and recommended that this court deny plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings
[D.E. 21 ], grant defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 23], and affirm defendant's
final decision. See [D.E. 26]. On May 31, 2018,plaintiffobjected totheM&R [D.E. 27]. On June
14, 2018, defendant responded [D.E. 29].
"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 itselfthat
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 ofthe M&R to which p1aintiffmade 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,~'

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 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 may be less than a preponderance." Smith
v. Chater, 99 F.3d 635,638 (4th Cir. 1996). This courtmaynotre-weigh the evidence or substitute
its judgment for that ofthe Commissioner. See,~' Hays, 907 F .2d at 1456. Rather, in determining
whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decisio~ 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, e.g., 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 whether
plaintiff's use of a cane was medically necessary. Compare [D.E. 22] 6-9, with [D.E. 26] 3-8, and
[D.E. 27] 1-3. However, both Judge Jones and the ALJ applied the proper legal standards. See
M&R at 2-8. Moreover, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's analysis. See id.
In sum, plaintiff's objections to the M&R [D.E. 27] are OVERRULED, plaintiff's motion
for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 21] is DENIED, defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings [D.E. 23] is GRANTED, defendant's final decision is AFFIRMED, and this action is
DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the case.

2

SO ORDERED. This Jj_ day of June 2018.

3