Murdock v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Filing 16

ORDER adopting 14 Report and Recommendation. The Commissioner is AFFIRMED and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Ordered that any motion not previously ruled on is denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 9/14/16. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
DIXIE MURDOCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION No. 6:15-cv-795

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Dixie Murdock initiated this civil action pursuant to Social Security Act, Section
205(g) for judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of Plaintiff’s application for Social
Security benefits. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love, who
issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the decision of the Commissioner should
be affirmed and the action dismissed with prejudice.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 14), which contains
his findings, conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of this action, has been
presented for consideration. Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation
(Doc. No. 15). Specifically, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding “that the ALJ
correctly applied the applicable legal standards in assessing Ms. Murdock’s credibility, residual
functional capacity (“RFC”), and ability to perform work…” Id. at 1. In her objections, Plaintiff
does not state any specific reason why she contends the Magistrate Judge’s findings were
erroneous, but instead simply reiterates that “the ALJ failed to apply the applicable legal
standards” and “substantial evidence does not support the findings.” Id. at 2. The record reveals
that the Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered the ALJ’s credibility, RFC, and ability to

1

perform work findings in his Report and Recommendation, and found that the ALJ properly
considered all relevant factors and carefully considered the objective medical evidence in
rendering his findings. (Doc. No. 14, at 11–14.) As such, the Magistrate Judge did not err in
concluding that the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.
Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge
as the findings and conclusions of the Court. It is accordingly 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.

So Ordered and Signed
Sep 14, 2016

2