Bradshaw v. Colvin

Filing 23

ORDER- the Court hereby OVERRULES Mr. Bradshaw's objections and APPROVES and ADOPTS the R&R 21 in full. ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 9 is hereby DENIED and Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Commissioner is therefore AFFIRMED and Mr. Bradshaw's case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 3/9/2017. (dest, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division DANIEL BRADSHAW, Civil No. l:16-cv-969 Plaintiff, Hon. Liam O'Grady v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant. ORDER This mattercomes before the Court on Daniel Bradshaw's objections to Magistrate Judge Davis's Report and Recommendation ("R & R") affirmingthe Social SecurityAdministration's denial of Mr. Bradshaw's application for disability insurance benefits (DIB). The decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Carolyn W. Colvin, to deny benefits, was based ona finding by an Administrative law Judge ("ALJ") and a decision from the Appeals Council for the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review that plaintiffwasnotdisabled as defined by the Social Security Act and applicable regulations. The R & R affirmed this decision, finding that the determination was supported by substantial evidencein the record and the correct legal standards were applied in evaluating the evidence. Afterreviewing the R & R, Plaintiffs objections, and the relevant caselaw, statutes, and regulations, the Court hereby OVERRULES Mr. Bradshaw's objections and APPROVES and ADOPTS the R & R (Dkt. No. 21) in full. Specifically, the Courtfinds that the Fourth Circuit's precedent in Grant v. Schweiker guides the resolution of this case. 699 F. 2d 189 (4th Cir. 1983). In Grant, the Court wrote:

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?