Opinion
Civil Action 4:22-CV-01951
06-26-2023
DELANO LUDWIG ROHDEN, JR., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DREW B. TIPTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the June 2, 2023 Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Peter Bray. (Dkt. No. 20). Magistrate Judge Bray made findings and conclusions and recommended that Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 11), be granted, and that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 14), be denied. (Dkt. No. 20).
The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed four objections to Magistrate Judge Bray's finding that the decision of the Administrative Law (“ALJ”) was consistent with the law and supported by substantial evidence. (Dkt. No. 23). First, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Bray's conclusion that the ALJ appropriately stated and applied the severity standard. (Id. at 1-2). Second, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Bray's conclusion that the ALJ did not substitute his lay opinion for that of a medical professional by improperly interpreting medical evidence. (Id. at 2-3). Third, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Bray's conclusion that the ALJ properly considered Dr. Azhar's medical opinion. (Id. at 3). Fourth, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Bray's conclusion that the ALJ properly evaluated his complaints of symptoms and pain. (Id. at 4).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that:
(1) Magistrate Judge Bray's M&R, (Dkt. No. 20), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court;
(2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 14), is DENIED; and
(3) Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 11), is GRANTED.
It is SO ORDERED.