Taylor v. Colvin
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as to 3 Complaint, affirming Commissioner's decision. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 3/5/15 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
JEFF TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION
AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 2:13-cv-00606-DN-PMW
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
District Judge David Nuffer
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
On September 5, 2014, Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the District Court affirm the Commissioner’s
decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental
Security Income (“SSI”). 1 Plaintiff Jeff Taylor (“Mr. Taylor”) objected to the R&R, 2 and the
Commissioner filed a reply to Mr. Taylor’s objection. 3 For the reasons discussed below, Mr.
Taylor’s objection is OVERRULED, the R&R is ADOPTED, and the Commissioner’s decision
denying benefits to Mr. Taylor is AFFIRMED.
1
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) at 20, docket no. 24, filed September 5, 2014.
2
Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Recommendation (“Objection”), docket no. 25, filed September 10, 2014.
3
Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Objctionsto [sic] the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, docket no.
26, filed September 24, 2014.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2010, Mr. Taylor applied for DIB and SSI, alleging disability beginning May 16,
2010. 4 His application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. 5 Mr. Taylor then requested
a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), and the ALJ issued a written decision
denying Mr. Taylor’s claim. 6 Mr. Taylor appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Appeals Council. 7
The Appeals Council denied review. 8 At that point, the ALJ’s decision became the final decision
of the Commissioner for purposes of judicial review, 9 and Mr. Taylor filed his complaint in this
court. 10 The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Warner under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Magistrate Judge Warner reviewed the ALJ’s (i.e., the Commissioner’s) decision under a
“substantial evidence” standard , 11 and issued an R&R recommending that the ALJ’s decision to
deny Mr. Taylor’s claim be affirmed. 12 Mr. Taylor objects to the R&R.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When an objection to the R&R is filed, the court “shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 13 The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence
4
Administrative Record (“Tr.”) at 154, docket no. 13, filed September 5, 2013.
5
Id. at 85-87.
6
Id. at 25-26.
7
Id. at 7.
8
Id. at 1.
9
20 C.F.R. § 404.981.
10
Complaint, docket no. 3, filed July 8, 2013.
11
R&R at 3.
12
Id. at 20.
13
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
2
or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 14 A court reviews the
Commissioner’s decision “to determine whether the factual findings are supported by substantial
evidence in the record and whether the correct legal standards were applied.” 15 However, a court
“will not reweigh the evidence or substitute [its] judgment for the Commissioner’s.” 16 “The
findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial
evidence, shall be conclusive[.]”17
The Tenth Circuit has explained:
The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does
not prevent an administrative agency’s findings from being supported by
substantial evidence. [The court] may not displace the agency’s choice between
two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a
different choice had the matter been before it de novo. 18
ANALYSIS
Mr. Taylor makes several arguments in his objection, pointing out alleged errors and
omissions with the decisions of the ALJ and the Magistrate Judge. However, Mr. Taylor
misapprehends the standard of review. Mr. Taylor must do more than simply point to errors or
omissions in the record; he must show that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial
evidence. 19 Mr. Taylor has failed to make that showing here.
Mr. Taylor simply disagrees with the ALJ’s decision, and disagrees with the Magistrate
Judge’s subsequent review of that decision. This objection cannot succeed. While Mr. Taylor
may be able to point to items that did not receive as much attention or weight as Mr. Taylor
14
Id.
15
See Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10th Cir.2007) (quoting Hackett v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1168, 1172 (10th
Cir. 2005)).
16
Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084.
17
42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
18
Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084.
19
See id.
3
prefers, none of Mr. Taylor’s stated objections raise any concern that the ALJ’s decision was not
supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, there is no need to conduct a separate analysis of
the Magistrate Judge’s decision here. After de novo review, it is evident that the Magistrate
Judge’s decision is correct, and the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Because the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, and none of Mr.
Taylor’s arguments show that the Magistrate Judge’s decision was incorrect,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Taylor’s Objection 20 to the R&R is OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the R&R 21 is ADOPTED, and the Commissioner’s
decision denying benefits is AFFIRMED.
The clerk shall close the case.
Dated March 5, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge
20
Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate’s Recommendation, docket no. 25, filed September 10, 2014.
21
Report and Recommendation, docket no. 24, filed September 5, 2014.
4
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?