McGhee v. Berryhill

Filing 23

OPINION and ORDER granting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment ; accepting 21 Report and Recommendations; Plaintiff's Objections 22 denied. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 11/14/2018. (ab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ABINGDON DIVISION
ANGELA RENEA McGHEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
ACTING COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:17CV00024
OPINION AND ORDER
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

Edward A. Wicklund, Syracuse, New York, and John Osborne Goss, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Plaintiff; James A. McTigue, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for Defendant.
In this social security disability case, I accept the report and
recommendations of the magistrate judge.
Angela Renea McGhee challenges the final decision of the Acting
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her claims for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under certain
provisions of the Social Security Act (“Act”). The action was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent to conduct appropriate
proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Magistrate
Judge Sargent filed her 26-page report on October 12, 2018, in which she

recommended that the court affirm the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits
on the ground that the plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. On
October 26, 2018, the plaintiff filed objections to the report, which objections are
now ripe for decision, the Commissioner not having filed a response.
I must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to
which the plaintiff objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Under the Act, I must uphold the factual findings and final decision of the
Commissioner if they are supported by substantial evidence and were reached
through application of the correct legal standard. See Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d
514, 517 (4th Cir. 1987). Substantial evidence is “evidence which a reasoning
mind would accept as sufficient to support a particular conclusion. It consists of
more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be somewhat less than a
preponderance.” Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640, 642 (4th Cir. 1966). If such
evidence exists, my inquiry is terminated and the Commissioner’s final decision
must be affirmed. See id.
In her objections, the plaintiff contests the finding of the administrative law
judge (“ALJ”) that the plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform
simple, routine, unskilled light work under certain conditions. The plaintiff argues
that there was not substantial evidence supporting this finding and that the ALJ
erred in discounting evidence to the contrary. In particular, it is contended that the
-2-

ALJ failed to conduct a function-by-function analysis regarding the plaintiff’s
ability to walk and stand when determining her residual functional capacity. Pl.’s
Objs. 3, ECF No. 22.
Based upon my careful consideration of these objections, the record, and the
arguments of plaintiff’s counsel, I agree with the magistrate judge that substantial
evidence supported the ALJ’s findings, which were in accord with relevant case
precedent. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s Objections, ECF No. 22, are DENIED;

2.

The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendations, ECF No. 21,

are fully ACCEPTED;
3.

The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 19, is

GRANTED; and
4.

Judgment will be forthwith entered.
ENTER: November 14, 2018
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge

-3-