Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-417-JJB-RLB
09-06-2016
JOSEPH SEAN CAMPBELL v. CAROLYN COLVIN, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
NOTICE
Please take note that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation has been filed with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have 14 days from receipt of this Notice to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Magistrate Judge's Report. A failure to object will constitute a waiver of your right to attack the factual findings on appeal.
ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 6, 2016.
/s/ _________
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed this cause of action on June 26, 2015, appealing the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's denial of his application for benefits. After the issues were fully briefed, the Court issued a Report and Recommendation on June 15, 2016 (R. Doc. 16), affirming the Commissioner's denial of Plaintiff's application. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation on July 5, 2016. (R. Doc. 17). On August 24, 2016, the District Judge referred the Objection "back to the Magistrate Judge for consideration . . . and such action as may be appropriate." (R. Doc. 18). Consistent with the District Judge's Order, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Objection and finds it does not warrant modification of the Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff's Objection focuses on the ALJ's failure to (1) consult a medical expert on equivalence or functional limitations, (2) discuss certain evidence or (3) accept the medical opinions of Plaintiff's treating physician in her decision denying Plaintiff's application for benefits. Essentially, Plaintiff's Objection simply restates his previous arguments made in support of his appeal, attacking the ALJ's analysis. (Pl.'s Memo., R. Doc. 8 at 14-15) (arguing the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinion of Plaintiff's treating physician); (R. Doc. 8 at 17) (arguing the ALJ erred by failing to consul a medical expert "to determine the nature and extent of limitations" imposed by Plaintiff's impairments); (R. Doc. 8 at 15) (suggesting "the ALJ's entire decision contains no mention of hyperreflexia" and other objective findings resulted in error).
The Magistrate Judge has already considered these arguments and issued a Report and Recommendation in connection with that consideration and in accordance with the applicable standards of review. The arguments raised in the objection are addressed in that Report and Recommendation. (R. Doc. 16). The Court understands that the Plaintiff disagrees with the decision rendered by the Commissioner. As previously explained, this Court's review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to an inquiry into whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Commissioner and whether the correct standards were applied. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); Falco v. Shalala, 27 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994). This Court may not reweigh the evidence, try the case de novo, or substitute its own judgment for that of the Commissioner.
Because Plaintiff has not made any new arguments or otherwise pointed to any evidence or legal precedent beyond his original Memorandum in Support of Appeal (R. Doc. 8), the Court finds that further modification of its Report and Recommendation is not warranted. The previous analysis (R. Doc. 16) is incorporated herein in its entirety.
For the reasons set forth in the previous Report and Recommendation and for those set forth above, the Court recommends that the Commissioner's decision be AFFIRMED and Plaintiff's appeal by DISMISSED with prejudice.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 6, 2016.
/s/ _________
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE