Rouse v. Colvin

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Benjamin H. Settle re 19 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by Shawna L. Rouse. (TG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

1
2

3 SHAWNA L. ROUSE,
Plaintiff,

4

CASE NO. C16-5134BHS-JDP
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

5 v.
6 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
7
Defendant.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
of the Honorable James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 17), and
Plaintiff Shawna Rouse’s (“Rouse”) objections to the R&R (Dkt. 19).
On October 24, 2016, Judge Donohue issued the R&R recommending that the
Court affirm the Commissioner’s denial of Rouse’s application for benefits. Dkt. 17. On
November 7, 2016, Rouse filed objections. Dkt. 19.
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s

16 disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or
17
18
19
20
21
22

modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
In this case, Rouse objects to the R&R’s conclusions regarding her hearing loss,
her credibility, and the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) step five finding. Dkt. 17.
On the issue of Rouse’s hearing, she argues that she requires work limitations beyond
what the ALJ found to be her limitations. Dkt. 19 at 3–9. The Court, however, finds that

ORDER - 1

1 the medical evidence does not support additional limitations and the R&R properly
2 evaluated the issues.
3

Regarding Rouse’s credibility, she argues that the ALJ erred in finding Rouse less

4 than credible. Dkt. 19 at 10. The Court, however, agrees with the R&R that one valid
5 reason exists to support the ALJ’s finding. Dkt. 17 at 12–15. Accordingly, the ALJ’s
6 determination is subject to deference, and the Court adopts the R&R on this issue.
7

Finally, Rouse argues that the Court should reject the R&R’s recommendation that

8 the Court should affirm the ALJ’s step five finding. Dkt. 19 at 11. This argument,
9 however, is based on the allegedly flawed conclusion regarding Rouse’s limitations.
10 Because the Court affirms the ALJ’s limitations, the Court also affirms the ALJ’s step
11 five finding.
12

Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Rouse’s objections, and the

13 remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:
14

(1)

The R&R is ADOPTED;

15

(2)

The Commissioner’s denial of Rouse’s application for benefits is

16

AFFIRMED;

17

(3)

This action is DISMISSED; and

18

(4)

The Clerk shall close this case.

19

Dated this 18th day of January, 2017.

A

20
21

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

22

ORDER - 2