Simmons v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 58

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 50 Report and Recommendation, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Honorable Timothy M. Cain on 06/19/2014. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Sharif Simmons,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Carolyn W. Colvin,1 Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 0:13-266-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Sharif Simmons (“Simmons”), proceeding pro se, brought this action under 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security (“Commissioner”) denying his claim for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the Social Security Act (“SSA”). This matter is
before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the United States
Magistrate Judge, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C., concerning the disposition of social security cases in this district. (ECF
No. 50).2 The magistrate judge recommends affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying
benefits. Simmons timely filed objections (ECF No. 52) and the Commissioner filed a reply to
those objections (ECF No. 54).

1

Carolyn W . Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on February 14, 2013.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Colvin should be substituted for Michael J. Astrue as the
defendant in this action.

2

The magistrate judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final
determination remains with the United States District Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The
court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is
made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate
judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

I. Background
Simmons filed an application for DIB and SSI in March 2010, alleging a disability onset
date of March 1, 1999. His application was denied initially and on reconsideration. Simmons
requested review by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) and a hearing was held before an ALJ
on March 8, 2011.
On April 29, 2011, the ALJ denied Simmons’ claim finding him not disabled under the
SSA. The ALJ found that Simmons suffered from the severe impairment of bipolar disorder.
However, the ALJ found that Simmons’ impairment did not meet or were medically equal to the
criteria for any of the listed impairments. Accordingly, the ALJ proceeded to assess Simmons’
residual functional capacity (“RFC”). The ALJ found that Simmons could perform a full range
of work at all exertional levels but with certain nonexertional limitations, and that he could
perform his past relevant work as a dishwasher. The ALJ, however, determined that Simmons
could perform other jobs in existence in the national economy in significant numbers, and
therefore, denied his disability claim.
Simmons sought review of the ALJ’s decision by the Appeals Council. On September 7,
2012, the Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s decision. Simmons then filed this action
for judicial review on January 29, 2013. In the Report, the magistrate judge sets forth the
relevant facts and legal standards, which are incorporated here by reference. Simmons filed
objections to the Report on May 30, 2014 (ECF No. 52), and the Commissioner filed a response
to those objections on June 16, 2014 (ECF No. 54). This matter is now ripe for review.
II. Standard of Review
The federal judiciary has a limited role in the administrative scheme established by the
SSA. Section 405(g) of the Act provides, “the findings of the Commissioner of Social Security

2

as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
“Substantial evidence has been defined . . . as more than a scintilla, but less than a
preponderance.” Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541, 543 (4th Cir. 1964). This standard
precludes a de novo review of the factual circumstances that substitutes the court’s findings for
those of the Commissioner. Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157 (4th Cir. 1971). Thus, in its review,
the court may not “undertake to re-weigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations,
or substitute [its] own judgment for that of the [Commissioner].” Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585,
589 (4th Cir. 1996).
However, “[f]rom this it does not follow . . . that the findings of the administrative
agency are to be mechanically accepted. The statutorily granted right of review contemplates
more than an uncritical rubber stamping of the administrative agency.” Flack v. Cohen, 413 F.2d
278, 279 (4th Cir. 1969). Rather, “the courts must not abdicate their responsibility to give
careful scrutiny to the whole record to assure that there is a sound foundation for the
[Commissioner’s] findings, and that this conclusion is rational.” Vitek, 438 F.2d at 1157-58.
III. Analysis
In his objections, Simmons summarily contends that the magistrate judge erred by
finding that he was not disabled from March 1, 1999, through the date of the ALJ’s decision.
(ECF No. 52 at 7). Simmons has not pointed to any specific error in the Report. A general
objection to the proposed findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge has the same
effect as no objection at all. See, e.g., United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir.
2007) (“Section 636(b)(1) does not countenance a form of generalized objection to cover all
issues addressed by the magistrate judge; it contemplates that a party's objection to a magistrate
judge's report be specific and particularized. . . .”); Page v. Lee, 337 F.3d 411, 416 n. 3 (4th Cir.

3

2003) (“[P]etitioner's failure to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation with the
specificity required by [Rule 72(b) ] is, standing alone, a sufficient basis upon which to affirm
the judgment of the district court. . . .”).
Having reviewed the record under the appropriate standards, as set out above, the court
concurs with both the reasoning and the result reached by the magistrate judge in her Report.
The ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court adopts the Report
and the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge

June 19, 2014
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

4