Whitfield v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of

Filing 19

ORDER denying 12 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; accepting and adopting 17 Report and Recommendations. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 8/25/2015. (AML, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
MELISSA ANN WHITFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14-cv-193
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Steger

ORDER
On February 23, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge William B. Carter filed his
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Carter recommended that (1) Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 12) be denied; (2) Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) be granted; (3) this action be dismissed.
Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. 18). These objections, however, merely restate the arguments
set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which were fully addressed in
Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report and Recommendation. (Compare Doc. 12 with Doc.
18; see Doc. 17). Specifically, Plaintiff reiterates the argument that the Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”) “made findings of fact that were unsupported by substantial
evidence,” and that, conversely, Plaintiff’s allegations were supported by substantial
evidence. (Doc. 18).
The Court has conducted a review of the Report and Recommendation, as well as
the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Carter’s well-reasoned conclusions.

Notably, this Court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the Commissioner
simply because substantial evidence may exist to support a different conclusion. Felisky
v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027, 1035 (6th Cir. 1994) (“The substantial evidence standard
presupposes that there is a zone of choice within which the Secretary may proceed
without interference from the courts.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the
Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Carter that the ALJ’s conclusions were supported by
substantial evidence, the Court will OVERRULE Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 18).
Accordingly:


The Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Carter’s findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations (Doc. 17) pursuant to §
636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b);



Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 18) are OVERRULED;



Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 12) is DENIED;



Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) is GRANTED;



The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED;



This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2015.

/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2