Bostic v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
21
OPINION AND ORDER: Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubel's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 18 as my own opinion 18 . Signed on 3/9/12 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (dls)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
CIANI NATAI BOSTIC,
No. 3:10-cv-01153-HU
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
MOSMAN, J.,
On February 8, 2012, Magistrate Judge Hubel issued his Findings and Recommendation
(“F&R”) [18] in the above-captioned case, recommending that I remand this action for further
proceedings. No objections were filed.
DISCUSSION
The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may
file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge,
but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to
make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the
1 – OPINION AND ORDER
court is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are
addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to
review the F&R depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to
accept, reject, or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Upon review, I agree with Judge Hubel’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [18]
as my own opinion. I add one point of clarification, however, to Judge Hubel’s discussion of
claimant credibility. Judge Hubel correctly explained that an ALJ may not simply define an RFC
and then, without more, conclude the claimant’s testimony is only credible to the extent it aligns
with the RFC. (F&R [18] 45). However, “[t]here is nothing wrong with an ALJ stating a
conclusion and then explaining it, as opposed to providing explanation and then reaching a
conclusion.” Black v. Astrue, 10-cv-06409-MO, 2011 WL 6130534, at *6 (D. Or. Dec. 7, 2011).
Thus, the problem with the ALJ’s analysis is not that the ALJ noted that the testimony was not
credible to the extent it was inconsistent with the RFC. Rather, the problem is that the ALJ
stated this conclusion without providing sufficient support for it.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this
9th
day of March, 2012.
/s/ Michael W. Mosman
.
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
United States District Court
2 – OPINION AND ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?