Curtis-Hampton v. Astrue

Filing 21

ORDER Accepting 20 Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The court grants 18 the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment, and the court denies 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 12/20/2011) (axm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SHERLON CURTIS-HAMPTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-00062-L

ORDER
Before the court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed May 2, 2011;
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed June 1, 2011; Memorandum in Support of
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed June 1, 2011; and the Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation (“Report”) of the United States Magistrate Judge, filed September 28, 2011.
Sherlon Curtis-Hampton (“Plaintiff” or “Curtis-Hampton”) filed this action seeking judicial
review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, who denied her application for
Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title II and XVI
of the Social Security Act. Pursuant to Special Order 3, the case was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver, for review and submission of proposed findings of fact and
recommendation for disposition.
Plaintiff presents the following issues for review: (a) whether the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) mischaracterized the Plaintiff’s past relevant work; and (b) whether the ALJ’s finding that
the Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work with the retained residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) was erroneous. Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J., 1 ¶ 2.
Order - Page 1

After reviewing the record, the magistrate judge concluded that the ALJ properly
characterized the Plaintiff’s past relevant work. The magistrate opined that the “ALJ’s finding that
Plaintiff was capable of performing her past relevant work as an accounts payable clerk was
supported by the evidence, specifically, the testimony of a vocational expert.” Report, 7 ¶ 3. The
magistrate judge concluded that the ALJ’s RFC finding is supported by substantial evidence; the
magistrate judge specially noted Plaintiff’s testimony that the procedure helps her knee pain and the
vocational expert’s testimony that Plaintiff would be able to perform her past work as an accounts
payable clerk with an accommodation. Report 8, ¶ 4 (citing Tr. at 42-43, 47-78).
After a review of the pleadings, file, record, applicable law, and the magistrate judge’s
findings and conclusions, the court determines that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions
are correct. The court, therefore, accepts the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions as those
of the court. The court grants the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the court
denies Curtis-Hampton’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
It is so ordered this 20th day of December, 2011.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order - Page 2