Powell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 24

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 18 Report and Recommendations, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 12/07/2011. (bshr, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Zana J. Powell, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of ) Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________________ ) C/A No. 0:10-2920-JFA-PJG ORDER The plaintiff, Zana J. Powell, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) denying her claim for supplemental security income (SSI) and disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401–433. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein he suggests that the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits should be affirmed. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation. The parties were advised of their right to submit objections to the Report and Recommendation. The plaintiff’s objections to the Report are merely duplicative of the issues that were presented to and addressed by the Magistrate Judge. Having reviewed the 1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the M agistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 record in light of the plaintiff’s objections and under the appropriate standards, the court adopts the Report and concurs with both the reasoning and the result reached by the Magistrate Judge. It is the duty of the ALJ reviewing the case, and not the responsibility of the courts, to make findings of fact and resolve conflicts in the evidence. This court’s scope of review is limited to the determination of whether the findings of the Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence taking the record as a whole, Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996), and whether the correct law was applied,” Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2002). After a careful review of the record, including the findings of the ALJ, the briefs from the plaintiff and the Commissioner, the Magistrate Judge’s Report, and the plaintiff’s objections thereto, this court finds the Report is proper and is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED. December 7, 2011 Columbia, South Carolina Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge 2

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?