Pass v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 28

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 22 Report and Recommendation, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L. Wooten on 02/03/2016. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Michael R. Pass,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 0:15-cv-208-TLW

ORDER

The Plaintiff, Michael R. Pass (“Plaintiff”), brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
405(g) and 1383(c)(3) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), denying his claims for Disability Insurance
Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. (ECF No. 10-2). This matter is before the Court for
review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on November 24, 2015 by United
States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) DSC. (ECF No.
22). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be
affirmed. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on December 12, 2015. (ECF No. 23). The
Commissioner filed a reply to the objections on December 18, 2015. (ECF No. 24). The matter is
now ripe for disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. §
636. In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:

1

The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an
objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo
or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to
those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are
addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s review of the Report
thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case the Court
is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
Plaintiff’s objections to the Report (ECF No. 23) include an allegation that the
Administrative Law Judge proposed a resolution to the case based in something other than the
evidence presented. Plaintiff also objects that the Administrative Law Judge did not weigh the
evidence properly and that his report did not completely account for the effects of Plaintiff’s
impairments in the Residual Functional Capacity. The Commissioner filed a response to the
objections asserting the Magistrate Judge carefully considered this case and that the objections
should be overruled. (ECF No. 24.)
It is evident in the Administrative Law Judge’s report that the Administrative Law Judge
spent a significant amount of time discussing the abundance of medical evidence, the medical
opinions presented, the weight of those opinions, and the effects of Plaintiff’s combined
impairments in making a final decision to deny benefits. In addition, the Magistrate Judge
thoroughly examined Plaintiff’s allegations, and it is evident from her detailed and lengthy Report
that she reviewed the record comprehensively in making her recommendation. After careful
consideration, the Court finds that there was significant review of the evidence reflected in the

2

Administrative Law Judge’s report, and it is clear that the Administrative Law Judge reviewed the
evidence in great detail.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s thorough Report and
Recommendation, the objections thereto, and all other relevant filings and memoranda. It is hereby
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is ACCEPTED. (ECF No. 22). For the reasons
articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten_____________
TERRY L. WOOTEN
Chief United States District Judge
February 3, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

3