Hannah v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 46

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 39 Report and Recommendation, affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L. Wooten on 04/11/2017. (bshr, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Laurie Hannah, Case No. 0:15-cv-5008-TLW-PJG PLAINTIFF v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ORDER DEFENDANT Plaintiff Laurie Hannah, proceeding pro se, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security decision that Plaintiff became disabled on January 15, 2015, instead of November 7, 2012. ECF No. 1. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Gossett to whom this case was previously 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. 39. In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends affirming the Commissioner’s decision. Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R, and the Commissioner replied. ECF Nos. 41, 42. This matter is now ripe for decision. In reviewing the R&R, the Court applies the following standard: 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. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted). After a careful review of the R&R, the objections filed by Plaintiff, and the record related to the R&R and the objections, this Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is supported by substantial evidence. As noted in the R&R, the ALJ offered detailed analysis of the evidence upon which he based his findings concerning Plaintiff’s Residual Functional Capacity before and after January 15, 2015. Tr. 22-24. Throughout the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the ALJ references the significance of the January 15, 2015 date as it relates to the disability determination in connection with the medical record. This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings and that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any error by the ALJ. ECF No. 39 at 11. Therefore, in light of the standard set forth in Wallace, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled, and the R&R is accepted. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Terry L. Wooten Chief United States District Judge April 11, 2017 Columbia, South Carolina 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?