Gregory v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 24

ORDER overruling objections and adopting 22 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 3/29/2017. (bjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
JUSTIN GREGORY,
Plaintiff
v.

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 9:16-CV-00005

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Plaintiff requests judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security Administration with respect to his application for disability-based benefits. This matter
has been referred to the Honorable Keith Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont,
Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge
submitted a report recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. The court
has considered the report and recommendation filed on March 7, 2017 (Doc. No. 22) and the
Plaintiff=s objections. (Doc. No. 23.) The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections
in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). After careful
consideration, the court concludes that the Plaintiff=s objections are without merit. 1 The court
concludes that the magistrate judge correctly identified and discussed the points of error argued by

1. The Plaintiff’s objection to the Report and Recommendation does not take into account that the ALJ set forth
numerous reasons for giving little weight to the treating physician’s opinions under the statutory analysis of 20
C.F.R. § 416. 927, and considered: the lack of evidence to support the substantial physical impairments found in Dr.
Clark’s statement, Dr. Clark’s own treatment notes showed normal exam findings throughout the treatment
relationship, Plaintiff lacked treatment for seizures, but for the one prescription that was discontinued, his opinion
was contradicted by the state agency medical consultants, and the additional, primarily cumulative, medical records
submitted to Appeals Council were also considered by the Magistrate Judge. The ALJ and Magistrate Judge applied
the correct standard in assessing the evidence, assigning little weight, not rejecting the treating physician’s opinions
altogether as suggested by Plaintiff. The ALJ sets out the proper legal standard of disability under the Act in her
decision and the agency’s five step sequential evaluation process for evaluating disability under the Act.

plaintiff and analyzed those points correctly. The magistrate judge properly examined the entire
record to determine that substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s determination
of weight accorded to medical evidence and the Commissioner’s denial of benefits.
Accordingly, all of the Plaintiffs objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct and the report of the magistrate judge is
ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate
judge=s recommendation.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of March, 2017.