Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10CV-46-S.
March 7, 2011
ORDER
This matter is before the court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (DN 19) and the plaintiff's objection thereto (DN 21).
The magistrate judge recommended that the court affirm the final decision of the Commissioner denying the plaintiff, George Howard, disability insurance benefits under Title II and supplemental security income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act ("SSA").
On review of the Commissioner's decision, the court is limited to determining whether the Commissioner's "findings, in light of all material proffered and admissible, are supported by `substantial evidence' within the command of § 205(g) [of the SSA, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)]." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971). Section 205(g) states, in pertinent part, that "[t]he findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . ."
In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the magistrate judge reviewed the findings and conclusions of the administrative law judge ("ALJ") and concluded that he "based his RFC finding upon a consideration of the regulatory factors and the evidence as a whole. (AR, p. 16)." Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the magistrate judge noted that in regard to the plaintiff's complaint of disabling pain:
"[A]fter the plaintiff has shown that his complaints of disabling pain have an adequate objective medical basis, the ALJ must evaluate the likely limitations that are actually present based upon an open-ended consideration of the medical and non-medical evidence as a whole.
Mag.Rep., p. 8. The ALJ did so.
The ALJ identified the plaintiff's degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, his treatment with prescription medication and epidural steroid treatments, and his self-report of disabling pain and limitation. The ALJ carefully considered and weighed the credibility of the medical and non-medical evidence in reaching the conclusion that the plaintiff's statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of his alleged symptoms were not credible, and concluding that there was no additional credible evidence to support the claim of disability. In his report, the magistrate judge revisited the ALJ's analysis and found substantial evidence to support the ALJ's findings and conclusions. On our own review of that portion of the magistrate judge's report to which the plaintiff objects, and review of the administrative record, the court concludes that the magistrate judge is correct in recommending that the Commissioner's final decision be affirmed. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY and the Final Decision of the Commissioner in this matter is AFFIRMED, and the complaint is DISMISSED.
There being no just reason for delay in its entry this is a final order.
March 4, 2011