Opinion
Civil Action 20-1610-WBV
12-29-2021
TIMOTHY NEAL MARTIN v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
ORDER
WENDY B. VITTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), plaintiff, Timothy Neal Martin, appeals the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”), denying his claim for disability insurance benefits and period of disability under Title II of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423. Plaintiff asserts that the following determinations of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) are not supported by substantial evidence: (1) the ALJ's refusal to admit the medical opinion of Dr. Bourgeois; (2) the ALJ's determination that, through the date he was last insured (December 31, 2010), Plaintiff did not have any severe impairments that met or medically equaled any of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Appendix 1, Subpart P; (3) the ALJ's determination that, through the date he was last insured, Plaintiff had the Residual Functional Capacity to perform the full range of medium work, as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(c); (4) the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff was able to perform past relevant work through the date he was last insured; and (5) the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff was not disabled between the alleged onset date of September 8, 2008 through December 31, 2010, the date he was last insured.
R. Docs. 1 & 19.
On September 14, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits be affirmed, that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied, that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, and that this action be dismissed with prejudice.Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that substantial evidence supports each of the ALJ's findings that were appealed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff timely-filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, re-urging many of the same argument raised in his Motion for Summary Judgment. The Commissioner filed a Response to Plaintiff's Objections, relying upon the “well-reasoned Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge” and urging the Court to adopt the Report and Recommendation as its ruling.
R. Doc. 19.
R. Doc. 25.
R. Doc. 26.
R. Doc. 27.
R. Doc. 28.
Having carefully considered the administrative record, the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and Plaintiff's Objections to Proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendationand ADOPTS the Report as the Court's opinion herein.
R. Doc. 13.
R. Doc. 26.
R. Doc. 27.
R. Doc. 26.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED, and that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, that Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement is GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's suit is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
R. Doc. 19.
R. Doc. 25.