Manor v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 12

ENTRY AND ORDER Overruling Manor's Objections (Doc. 11 ) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations; Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (Doc. 10 ) in its Entirety; Affirming the Commissioner's Decision that Manor is not disabled and Terminating this Case. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 7/19/2011. (kje1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MARC MANOR,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:10-cv-274

vs.

Judge Thomas M. Rose

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING MANOR’S OBJECTIONS (Doc.
#11) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ; ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #10) IN ITS ENTIRETY;
AFFIRMING THE COMMISSIONER’S DECISION THAT MANOR IS
NOT DISABLED AND TERMINATING THIS CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Marc Manor has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial
review of the final decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (the
“Commissioner”) denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). On June 9,
2011, United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington entered a Report and
Recommendations (doc. #10) affirming the Commissioner’s decision that Manor was not
disabled. Manor subsequently filed Objections (doc. #11) and the time has run and the
Commissioner has not responded to Manor’s Objections. This matter is, therefore, ripe for
decision.
Manor sought DIB. His application was denied initially and on reconsideration. Manor
then filed an action in this Court seeking judicial review.
1

Based upon the reasoning and citations of authority set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendations (doc. #10) and in Manor’s Objections (doc. #11), as well as upon
a thorough de novo review of this Court’s file, including the Administrative Transcript, and a
thorough review of the applicable law, this Court adopts the aforesaid Report and
Recommendations in its entirety and, in so doing, affirms the Commissioner’s decision that
Manor was not disabled. Finally, Manor’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations are overruled.
This Court’s function is to determine whether the record as a whole contains substantial
evidence to support the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ’s”) decision. Bowen v.
Commissioner of Social Security, 478 F.3d 742, 745-46 (6th Cir. 2007). This Court must also
determine whether the ALJ applied the correct legal criteria. Id.
Regarding the substantial evidence requirement, the ALJ’s findings must be affirmed if
they are supported by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)(citing Consolidated
Edison Company v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)); Landsaw v. Secretary of Health and
Human Services, 803 F.2d 211, 213 (6th Cir. 1986). Substantial evidence means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Richardson,
supra, at 401; Ellis v. Schweicker, 739 F.2d 245, 248 (6th Cir. 1984). Substantial evidence is
more than a mere scintilla, but only so much as would be required to prevent a directed verdict
(now judgment as a matter of law) against the ALJ/Commissioner if this case were being tried to
a jury. Foster v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 483, 486 (6th Cir. 1988); NLRB v. Columbian Enameling and
Stamping Company, 306 U.S. 292, 300 (1939).

2

The second judicial inquiry - reviewing the ALJ’s legal criteria - may result in reversal
even if the record contains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s factual findings. See
Bowen, 478 F.3d at 746. A reversal based on the ALJ’s legal criteria may occur, for example,
when the ALJ has failed to follow the Commissioner’s “own regulations and where that error
prejudices a claimant on the merits or deprives the claimant of a substantial right.” Bowen, 478
F.3d at 746(citing in part Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 546-47 (6th
Cir. 2004)).
In this case, the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ applied
the correct legal criteria. WHEREFORE, based upon the aforesaid, Manor’s Objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (doc. #11) are OVERRULED, and this Court
adopts the Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. #10) in its
entirety.
The Commissioner’s decision that Manor was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to
benefits under the Social Security Act is AFFIRMED. Finally, the above captioned case is
hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Dayton.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Nineteenth Day of July, 2011.
.

s/Thomas M. Rose
_____________________________________
JUDGE THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

3