Taylor v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 23 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 09/16/2015. (nkl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
DURESNO TAYLOR

§

v.

§

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14cv256

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains his findings,
conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of this action, has been presented for
consideration. The Report and Recommendation recommends that the social security complaint be
dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions that the ALJ’s
credibility, RFC, and Step Five findings are supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ
correctly applied the applicable legal standards in making those findings.
In support of his objections, Plaintiff argues, as he did in his brief, that the ALJ considered
only the opinions of non-examining sources Dr. Rosenstock, Dr. Rowley, Dr. Durfor, and Dr.
Murphy. Plaintiff contends that “the ALJ did not even consider the medical record opinions of any
consultative or examining sources.” However, the ALJ’s decision makes clear that more than merely
the opinion evidence of these physicians was considered. This decision set out the medical evidence
in great detail and stated that the RFC assessment was supported by the objective medical evidence,
the relevant hearing testimony, and the opinion evidence. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s
conclusions. Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings and recommendations to which objection was made. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)
(district judge shall “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”) Upon such de novo review,
1

the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and the Plaintiff’s
objections are without merit. It is accordingly
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate Judge
(docket no. 23) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and the Plaintiff’s
complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any motion not previously ruled on is DENIED.
So Ordered and Signed on this

Sep 16, 2015

2