Vann v. Kijakazi

Filing 20

ORDER - The court OVERRULES plaintiff's objections to the M&R D.E. 16 , ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R D.E. 15 , DENIES plaintiff relief D.E. 10 , AFFIRMS defendant's final decision, and DISMISSES this action. The clerk shall close the case. Signed by District Judge James C. Dever III on 3/6/2025. (Mann, Stephanie)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DMSION
No. 7:23-CV-1471-D
MICHELLE VANN,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEµND DUDEK,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On February 10, 2025, Magistrate Judge Brian S. Meyers issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation ("M&R") and recommended that the court affirm Acting Social Security
Commissioner Leland Dudek's (''Dudek" or "defendant'') final decision to deny Michelle Vann's
("Vann" or "defendant'') request for benefits [D.E. 15]. On February 24, 2025, Vann objected to the
M&R [D.E. 16]. On March 1, 2025, Dudek responded in opposition [D.E. 18]. On March 5, 2025,
Vann replied [D.E. 19].
''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., 416 F.3d 310,315 (4th Cir.
2005) (cleaned up); see 28 U.S.C; § 636(b)(l). 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 Vann's objections. As for those portions

of the M&R to which Vann made no objection, the court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the
face of the record. See id.
The court has reviewed de novo the portions ofthe M&R to which Vann objected. The scope
ofjudicial review of a final decision concerning disability benefits under the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. §§ 301 et ~ is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the
Commissioner's factual findings and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards.
~~ 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Dowling v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 986 F.3d 377, 382-83 (4th

Cir. 2021); Shinaberryv. Saul, 952 F.3d 113, 120 (4th Cir. 2020); Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686,
692-93 (4th Cir. 2018) superseded on other grounds as recognized in Rogers v. Kijakazi, 62 F.4th
872, 878--80 (4th Cir. 2023); 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); see Biestek v. Berryhill, 567 U.S. 97, 102 (2019); Dowling, 986 F.3d at 383.
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); ~ Biestek, 567 U.S. at 102; Dowling, 986 F.3d at 383;
Shinaberry. 952 F .3d at 120. This court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for
that of the Commissioner. See,~ Dowling. 986 F.3d at 383; Shinaberry, 952 F.3d at 123; Hays,
907 F .2d at 1456. Rather, in determining whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's
decision, the court examines whether the Commissioner analyzed the relevant evidence and
sufficiently explained her findings and rationale concerning the evidence. See, ~ Shinaberry, 952
F.3dat 120; Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d438, 439-40 (4th Cir. 1997).
Vann's objection repackages the arguments made to Judge Meyers concerning whether the
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") properly accounted for limitations in concentration, persistence,
2

or pace when formulating Vann's residual functional capacity. Compare [D.E. 10] 8-14, with [D.E.
16] 2-7; see also [D.E. 18] 2-6. Judge Meyers and the ALJ, however, applied the proper legal
standards. See [D.E. 15] 6-11. Moreover, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's analysis. See
id. Thus, the court overrules the objections.
In sum, the court OVERRULES plaintiff's objections to the M&R [D.E. 16], ADOPTS the
conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 15], DENIES plaintiffrelief [D.E. 10], AFFIRMS defendant's final
decision, and DISMISSES this action. The clerk shall close the case.
SO ORDERED. This~ day of March, 2025.

United States District Judge

3