Green v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 20 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 03/24/2016. (klc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14cv681
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her findings,
conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of this action, has been presented for
consideration. The Report and Recommendation recommends that the decision of the Commissioner
be affirmed and the complaint be dismissed. Plaintiff has filed a written objection to the R & R.
Having made a de novo review of the objection filed by Plaintiff, the Court finds that the
findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Plaintiff contends
in the objection that the ALJ and the Report of the Magistrate Judge incorrectly determined there
was no error in the assessment of Plaintiff’s credibility. Plaintiff argues that “the Magistrate Judge
erroneously concluded that the ALJ’s reliance on his determination that Mr. Green is not disabled
was a proper ground for finding that Mr. Green was not fully credible”. See Objections to the R &
R at 1; see also Report and Recommendations at 7-10.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report fully addresses the issue of credibility. As the Magistrate
Judge pointed out, the ALJ did not entirely reject Plaintiff’s allegations. SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL
374186, at *4 (the adjudicator need not totally accept or totally reject the claimant’s statements).
The ALJ incorporated Plaintiff’s testimony into its assessment by finding that Plaintiff could
perform only light work that included only occasional climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. See
Tr. at 15. The ALJ further found that Plaintiff could perform light work that required only occasional
overhead reaching with the left upper extremity. See Tr. At 19. Therefore, despite Plaintiff’s
contention otherwise, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s testimony and used it to establish Plaintiff’s
residual functional capacity. Considering Plaintiff’s subjective reports together with the medical
findings from the adjudicated period, the Magistrate Judge properly found that the ALJ correctly
determined that Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of
his symptoms were not entirely credible. See Tr. at 19-22.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection is without merit and will be overruled. There is substantial
evidence in the record supporting the Commissioner’s decision. The findings and conclusions of
the Magistrate Judge are therefore adopted as those of the Court.
In light of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections are hereby OVERRULED. It is further
ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and the complaint is
hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further
ORDERED that any motion not previously ruled on is DENIED.
SIGNED this 24th day of March, 2016.
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
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?