Peters v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 24

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations # 22 ; Plaintiff's statement of errors are OVERRULED and the decision of the Commissioner of SS is AFFIRMED, this action is dismissed. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 2/4/19. (sh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

KATHY S. PETERS,
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No.: 2:18-cv-197

JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH

Magistrate Judge Vascura

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

ORDER

This case is before the Court to consider the Report andRecommendation issued by the
Magistrate Judge on January 7, 2019. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs

Statement of Errors be overruled and the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security be
affirmed. {See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 22). This matter is now before the Court on

Plaintiffs Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 23). The

Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)( 1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Plaintiffobjects to the ALJ and Magistrate Judge's findings, arguing that "the ALJ cherry

picked the medical evidence as well as evidence about Ms. Peters's activities ofdaily living."
(Doc. 23 at 2). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ's consideration of her activities were

selectively cited in such a way that heranalysis of Ms. Peters's RFC was not based on a fair
summation of the evidence.

Plaintiffs objection presents the same issue already presented to, and carefully
considered by, the Magistrate Judge in the Report andRecommendation. Plaintiff has not

presented any new evidence orargument other than what was previously presented in her

Statement ofErrors. Plaintiff merely disagrees with the ALJ and Magistrate Judge's conclusions,

specifically with respect to Plaintiffsactivities ofdaily living. As the Magistrate Judge correctly
recognized, an ALJ is not required to"discuss every piece ofevidence in the record to

substantiate [hisjdecision.' (Doe. 22 at 6-7). Further, an allegation of"cherry picking" "is
seldom successful because crediting it would require a court to re-weigh record evidence." (id.
at 7). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge'sconclusions that the ALJ did not addre.ss

every piece of evidence in the record, but the findings show that the entire record was considered

and the ALJ did not "cherry pick" the medical evidence to support his RFC determination.
The Court has carefully considered Plaintiffs objection, but finds that the decision of the

ALJ was supported by substantial evidence asacknowledged in detail in the Magistrate Judge's

Report and Recommendation. Therefore, for the reasons stated in the well-reasoned Report and
Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiffs objection is without merit.
Based on theaforementioned and thedetailed Report and Recommendation, the Court

finds that Plaintiffs objection has been thoroughly considered and is hereby OVERRULED.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation, Document 22. is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.

Plaintiffs Statement of Errors is hereby OVERRULED, and thedecision of the Commissioner
of Social Security is AFFIRMED.

-2-

The Clerk shall remove Documents 22 and 23 from the Court's pending motions list, and
enter final judgment in favor ofDefendant, the Commissioner ofSocial Security.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/George C. Smith
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-3-