Goodin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 24

ORDER RULING ON 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. It is hereby ordered that Magistrate Judge Marchant's Report is accepted and incorporated herein by reference, (ECF No. 19), that Plaintiff's Objection is overruled, (ECF No. 21), and that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 06/25/2014. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Louetta Goodin,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.
__________________________________

) Civil Action No.: 9:13-1026-MGL
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Louetta Goodin, (“Plaintiff”), brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant, Acting Commissioner of Social
Security (“Commissioner”), denying her claim for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the
Social Security Act. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a),
D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant for pretrial
handling. On May 16, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,
(“Report”), concluding that the findings of the Administrative Law Judge, (“ALJ”), were supported
by substantial evidence and recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed.
(ECF No. 19). Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report on May 30, 2014, (ECF No. 21), to which
the Commissioner replied on June 16, 2014. (ECF No. 22). The matter is now ripe for decision.
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.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). In the absence of a timely filed Objection, a district court need not conduct a de
novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
In light of the standards set forth above, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and,
in particular, Plaintiff’s Objection. In the Objection, Plaintiff maintains that portions of the
Magistrate Judge’s summary of the record -- such as the Magistrate Judge’s noting that Plaintiff’s
treating physician, Dr. Daniels, suggested to her that she apply for disability on the first day that he
met and examined her -- reflect a bias against Plaintiff. (ECF No. 21 at p. 2). However, as the
Commissioner points out in her Reply, each of the complained of “comments” of the Magistrate
Judge are tied to specific evidence in the record, and Plaintiff ultimately fails to establish that these
characterizations reflect an actual bias, amount to an improper de novo review of the facts of the
case, or otherwise constitute error by the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 22).
Additionally, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge correctly found that substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s analysis, including the ALJ’s weighing of the various medical opinions
offered, the resulting determination of Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (RFC), and the
determination that Plaintiff does not suffer from a severe lung impairment. The Court does not find,
as urged by the Plaintiff in her Objection, that the ALJ drew any improper, adverse inference based
upon Plaintiff’s failure to seek treatment over and above that which was sought and set out in the
record. As the Magistrate Judge notes on this point, the ALJ’s decision reflects a focus, not on
Plaintiff’s failure to seek additional treatment or on a corresponding lack of medical records, but
rather on the treatment records that were available for review and on what those records did and did

-2-

not show. (ECF No. 19 at p. 20).
In sum, after a thorough review of the record and the facts of the instant case, the Court
concurs in the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. It is hereby ORDERED that the
Magistrate Judge’s Report is accepted and incorporated herein by reference, (ECF No. 19), that
Plaintiff’s Objection is overruled, (ECF No. 21), and that the decision of the Commissioner is
AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
June 25, 2014
Spartanburg, South Carolina

-3-