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, )

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