Vanness v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
ORDER adopting 21 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. 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 4/16/2017. (bjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BOBBY L. VANNESS,
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
§ CASE NO. 6:15-CV-00889-RC-JDL
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On October 7, 2015, Plaintiff 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. Doc. No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On February 14, 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. Doc. No. 21 (“R&R”). Plaintiff has filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 22 (“Obj.”).
Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge “erred in finding that the ALJ correctly applied
the applicable legal standards in assessing Mr. Vanness’s credibility, residual functional capacity
(“RFC”), and ability to perform work, and in finding that substantial evidence supports those
assessments.” Obj. at 1. Plaintiff then recites the standards for federal court review of an ALJ’s
decision. Id. at 1–2; see also R&R at 2–3. Finally, Plaintiff quotes at length from her opening
brief. Obj. at 2–3. Plaintiff, however, does not refer to the Magistrate Judge’s findings in
relevant detail in the substance of her objections. See generally Obj. Nor does Plaintiff provide
any specific arguments explaining how the Magistrate Judge erred in his findings. Id.
Regardless, Plaintiff’s general objections are unavailing.
The Magistrate Judge
thoroughly reviewed the ALJ’s credibility assessment and found that the ALJ properly
considered all the relevant factors, including medical records of Plaintiff’s treatment, his daily
activities, his non-compliance with medical treatment, state agency medical expert opinions, and
Plaintiff’s testimony during the hearing, in rendering his credibility findings. R&R at 8–11.
Therefore, the Magistrate Judge did not err in finding the ALJ’s credibility findings to be
supported by substantial evidence.
Likewise, the Magistrate Judge properly found that the ALJ’s RFC finding is supported
by substantial evidence. Id. at 10–11. The Magistrate Judge noted that the ALJ adequately
explained the reasoning, appropriately weighed the evidence, and incorporated limitations into
the RFC assessment that were more supported by the record. Id. at 11.
Finally, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the ALJ properly relied on the testimony of
a vocational expert and found that Plaintiff is capable of successful adjustment to other work that
exists in significant numbers in the national economy, given Plaintiff’s age, education, work
experience, and RFC. Id. at 12–13. The Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s findings.
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
Apr 16, 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?