DePrez v. Social Security Administration

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly, after a de novo review, Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. No. 20 ) are OVERRULED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 19 ), which is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's M otion for Judgment on the Record (Doc. No. 15 ) is DENIED, and the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with Federal Rule. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 10/31/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
ERIC MATTHEW DEPREZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:16-cv-02632
CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW

ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from the Magistrate Judge,
recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Record and affirm the
final decision of the Commissioner. (Doc. No. 19.) Plaintiff filed a timely Objection. (Doc. No.
20.) In his Objection, Plaintiff made the same three arguments he made before the Magistrate
Judge: (1) the ALJ failed to properly consider and give appropriate weight to Plaintiff’s treating
source opinion evidence; (2) the ALJ erred because Plaintiff’s impairment is “clearly” more than
non-severe; and (3) the ALJ improperly discounted Plaintiff’s credibility by attacking his service
record. (Doc. No. 20.)
The Magistrate Judge, in his forty page Report and Recommendation, thoroughly
addressed all three arguments. First, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the ALJ extensively
discussed the opinion evidence from the VA medical records. (Doc. No. 19 at 21). Second, the
Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determination
to find that Plaintiff does not have a severe impairment, as defined in the Social Security
Regulations. (Doc. No. 19 at 25.) And last, the Magistrate Judge discussed the conflicting evidence

within the record regarding Plaintiff’s service record, and correctly held that any credibility
determination from that evidence is left in the discretion of the ALJ. (Doc. No. 19 at 34.) This
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusion.
Accordingly, after a de novo review, Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. No. 20) are
OVERRULED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 19), which is
ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Record (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED, and the
final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2