Holloway v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Filing 18

ORDER adopting 16 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and the complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice. Ordered that any motion not previously ruled on is denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 2/8/2017. (bjc, )

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

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE No. 6:15-cv-811-RC-JDL

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On September 1, 2015, Plaintiff initiated the above entitled and numbered civil action
pursuant to the 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On January 13, 2017, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation confirming that the decision of the
Commissioner should be affirmed and the action dismissed with prejudice. Docket No. 16.
Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Docket No. 17.
Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge “erred in finding that the ALJ correctly applied
the applicable legal standards in assessing Ms. Holloway’s credibility, residual functional
capacity (“RFC”), and ability to perform work, and in finding that substantial evidence supports
those assessments.” Docket No. 17, at 1. Plaintiff then recites the standards for federal court
review of an ALJ’s decision. Id. at 1-2. Specifically, judicial review of the Commissioner’s
denial of disability benefits is limited to determining whether the decision is supported by
substantial evidence in the record and used proper legal standards in evaluating the evidence. Id.
at 1; see also Docket No. 16, at 2. Plaintiff states that the ALJ failed to give specific reasons for

1

her credibility determination, as required by courts in this district. Docket No. 17, at 2 (citing
Prince v. Barnhart, 418 F. Supp. 2d 863 (E.D. Tex. 2005). Plaintiff then quotes at length from
her opening brief before concluding with the assertions that “the ALJ failed to apply the
applicable legal standards” and “substantial evidence does not support the findings.” Docket No.
17, at 2-3. Plaintiff does not refer to the Magistrate Judge’s findings anywhere in the substance
of her objections or argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in any way in his findings.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s general objection lacks merit. The record reveals that the
Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered the ALJ’s credibility finding 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 credibility finding. Docket No. 16, at
8–11. As such, the Magistrate Judge did not err in finding the ALJ’s credibility finding to be
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
Feb 8, 2017

2