Roberts v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
ORDER adopting 19 Report and Recommendation. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and the pltf's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Any motion not previously ruled on is denied. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 3/10/17. (tkd, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JANET ANN ROBERTS,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN
ACTING COMMISIONER OF
CASE No. 6:15-cv-835-RC-JDL
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On September 7, 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 February 6, 2017, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation confirming that the decision of the
Commissioner should be affirmed and the action be dismissed with prejudice. Docket No. 19.
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation (“Report”). Docket No. 20. No
response to the objections has been filed.
Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge “erred in finding that the ALJ correctly applied
the applicable legal standards in assessing Ms. Robert’s credibility, residual functional capacity
(“RFC”), and ability to perform work, and in finding that substantial evidence supports those
assessments.” Id. at 1. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that the Magistrate Judge erred by referring
to the ALJ’s conclusion that that the medical record evidence does not support the severity of the
RFC found by Dr. Phillips. Id. at 2.
Plaintiff simply states that “RFC is not measured by severity,” but fails to cite to any
authority or case law that would suggest the Magistrate Judge or the ALJ applied an incorrect
legal standard. Id. Moreover, Plaintiff does not refer to any of the Magistrate Judge’s findings in
her objections. Id.
The Court finds Plaintiff’s perfunctory objections meritless and unsupported by authority.
The record reveals that the Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered the ALJ’s credibility, RFC,
and ability to perform work findings in his Report, and found that the ALJ properly considered
all relevant factors and the objective medical evidence in rendering his findings. Docket No. 19
at 6-12. 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 this Court. It is accordingly ORDERED that the decision of
the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that any motion not previously ruled on is DENIED.
So Ordered and Signed
Mar 10, 2017
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?