Stephens v. Colvin
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Cohns Report and Recommendation 24 is ADOPTED Plaintiff Steve Stephens appeal 1 is DENIED, as the ALJs decision is supported by substantial evidence. Judgment is entered in favor of the Commissioner and against Steve Stephens and the Clerk of Court is directed to close the above-captioned case. Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 3/28/17. (rw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,1
Acting Commissioner of the Social Security :
(Magistrate Judge Cohn)
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
On February 27, 2012, Plaintiff Steve Stephens (“Plaintiff”) filed as a claimant for
disability benefits under Title II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433,
1382-1383 (the “Act”), claiming a disability onset date of April 25, 2011. (Doc. No. 10-2 at 14.)
Following the initial denial of Plaintiff’s claim, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), which was held on January 29, 2014. (Id.) On May 15,
2014, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Act. (Id.) On September 14, 2015,
the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s decision, and affirmed
that decision as the “final decision” of the Commissioner. (Id. at 2.)
On October 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed the above-captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
405g, appealing the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s final decision
denying his claim for Social Security benefits, which has been fully briefed. (Doc. No. 1.) Now
The Court notes that since the institution of this action, Carolyn W. Colvin has been
succeeded as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration by Nancy A. Berryhill.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), a public officer’s successor is automatically
substituted as a party in an action brought against the public officer in an official capacity.
before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Cohn, recommending
that Plaintiff’s appeal be denied, and Plaintiff’s objections thereto. (Doc. Nos. 24, 25.) In his
Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Cohn finds that the ALJ’s decision was
supported by substantial evidence. (Id. at 55-56.)
Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation on the grounds that Magistrate Judge
Cohn erred in finding that: (1) substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s allocation of little weight
to Dr. DeMuth’s medical opinion; (2) substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s reliance on Dr.
Schnepp’s July 2012 opinion and according less weight to Dr. Schneider’s May 2012
consultative opinion; (3) substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s
impairments do not meet the requirements of Paragraph B for Listing 12.04; and (4) substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s credibility determination relating to Plaintiff’s use of a cane to
ambulate. (Doc. No. 25.) Having considered Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds that
Magistrate Judge Cohn correctly and comprehensively addressed the substance of Plaintiff’s
objections in the Report and Recommendation itself. (Doc. No. 25.) Accordingly, the Court will
not write separately to address Plaintiff’s objections.
AND SO, upon independent review of the record and applicable law, on this 28th day of
March 2017, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
Magistrate Judge Cohn’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 24), is
Plaintiff Steve Stephens’ appeal (Doc. No. 1), is DENIED, as the ALJ’s decision
is supported by substantial evidence;
Judgment is entered in favor of the Commissioner and against Steve Stephens;
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the above-captioned case.
s/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, District Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
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?