Lybrand v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER ADOPTING 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 3/7/2012. (ydav, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Phyllis E. Lybrand,
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of
C/A No. 3:10-2293-JFA-JRM
The plaintiff, Phyllis E. Lybrand, 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 disability insurance benefits (DIB) under Title II of
the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401–433.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 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
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 Magistrate Judge, or recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(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
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.
March 7, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
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?