HORNE v. COLVIN

Filing 17

ORDER signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 03/27/2017 affirming and adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, that the Commissioner's decision finding no disability is AFFIRMED, that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10 ) is DENIED, that the Commissioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 12 ) is GRANTED, and that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as set out in the Recommendation. (Garland, Leah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ANGEL L. HORNE, on behalf of
K.L.H.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

1:15CV902

ORDER
On

February

15,

2017,

the

United

States

Magistrate

Judge’s

Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Plaintiff filed objections within the time limit

prescribed by Section 636.

(Doc. 16.)

Plaintiff contends in her objections that she has “new evidence”
to present, but she has not presented that evidence or even made a
general showing of the nature of the evidence, nor has she attempted to
show that the evidence “is material and that there is good cause for
the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record” in the
administrative proceeding.

42 U.S.C. 405(g).

To the extent that the

new evidence might relate to a time period after the date of the
administrative

determination,

based

on

Plaintiff's

contention

that

K.L.H.'s condition has "gotten worse," Plaintiff remains free to present
the evidence in a new administrative application as to the later time
period.

See 20 C.F.R. § 416.330(b); J.M. by Nunley v. Berryhill, 2017

WL 570710 (E.D.Va. Feb. 13, 2017) ("Ms. Nunley's remedy — should she
believe the evidence concerning J.M.'s diagnoses and medication as
presented in her Objection would qualify J.M. for a finding of a
disability

after

the

ALJ's

2014

decision

—

is

to

file

a

new

application.").
The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections de novo and finds
that they do not change the substance of the United States Magistrate
Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. 14), which is affirmed and adopted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision finding
no disability is AFFIRMED, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 10) is DENIED, that the Commissioner’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (Doc. 12) is GRANTED, and that this action is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE as set out in the Recommendation.

/s/
Thomas D. Schroeder
United States District Judge
March 27, 2017

2