Lipscomb v. Astrue
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting 16 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; overruling Plaintiff's 17 Objections to the PF&R; dismisses Plaintiff's 2 Complaint and removes this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 8/8/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
CHARLES LIPSCOMB II,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-cv-00326
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Charles Lipscomb II’s Complaint seeking review of the decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security [Docket 2]. By Standing Order entered August 1, 2006, and
filed in this case on March 15, 2010, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Mary E.
Stanley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge
Stanley filed a PF&R [Docket 16] on May 5, 2011, recommending that this Court affirm the final
decision of the Commissioner and dismiss this matter from the Court’s docket. Objections to the
PF&R in this case were due on May 23, 2011; Plaintiff filed objections on May 23, 2011.
The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or
legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to
which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, this
Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections
that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
I. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) on August 8, 2006,
alleging disability as of September 1, 2001, due to a back injury, high blood pressure, and chest pain.
The full factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the PF&R. Plaintiff summarized
his objections as follows: “(1) The Commissioner erred in finding that the Plaintiff cites medical
evidence outside the DIB period as proof of disability. (2) The Commissioner erred in determining
that the ALJ reasonably gave no weight to the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician, Dr.
Hively.” (Docket 17 at 1.) The magistrate judge found that: (1) “the ALJ did not err in finding that
Claimant failed to establish a medically determinable impairment between September 1, 2001 and
September 30, 2003,” and (2) “the ALJ properly evaluated the claim and weighed the evidence of
treating physician Dr. Hively under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) and the applicable regulations.”
(Docket 16 at 38 & 47-48.)
Plaintiff objects that “the Commissioner erred in stating that the Plaintiff’s citation to
medical evidence outside the relevant period in support of disability was improper.” (Docket 17 at
1-2.) In reviewing the ALJ’s decision, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that “the
Commissioner is correct in stating that Claimant improperly cited medical evidence generated
outside of the September 30, 2003 period.” (Docket 16 at 38-39.) Further, even when the evidence
outside that period is considered, “Claimant has failed to establish disability as defined in the Social
Security Act. (Id. at 39.) Thus, Plaintiff’s first objection is OVERRULED.
Plaintiff’s second objection is the same argument made to the magistrate judge, that the ALJ
did not properly weigh the opinion of Dr. Hively. Again, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge
-2-
that the Commissioner’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and were reached through
application of the correct legal standards. This objection is also OVERRULED.
II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Docket 16], OVERRULES
Plaintiff’s Objections to the PF&R [Docket 7], DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint [Docket 2], and
REMOVES this matter from the Court’s docket. A separate Judgment Order will enter this day.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:
-3-
August 8, 2011
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?