Johnson v. Colvin

Full title: BRANDI JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION

Date published: Aug 30, 2016

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-63 (CAR) (M.D. Ga. Aug. 30, 2016)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-63 (CAR)

08-30-2016

BRANDI JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

C. ASHLEY ROYAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Social Security Appeal

ORDER ON RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to affirm the Commissioner's decision to deny Plaintiff Brandi Johnson's application for supplemental security income, finding she was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and Regulations. Plaintiff filed a timely Objection to the Recommendation, and the Government has responded to the Objection. Accordingly, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the administrative record and the Commissioner's decision.

In her Objection, Plaintiff largely restates the same arguments she presented to the Magistrate Judge arguing the ALJ's reasons for rejecting the frequency, severity, and effect of Plaintiff's headaches, and the ALJ's findings that Plaintiff can frequently handle and finger with her right hand, are not supported by substantial evidence. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertions, however, the Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered the administrative record and used the correct legal standards to explain why each alleged error fails. The Recommendation sets forth a detailed analysis and that analysis need not be restated here. Moreover, the Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff's argument the Commissioner engaged in, and the Magistrate Judge relied upon, improper post-hoc rationalization regarding the ALJ's decision to discount Plaintiff's subjective complaints. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions and finds the ALJ applied the correct legal standards, and her decision was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Objections [Doc. 16] are OVERRULED, and the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 14] is therefore ADOPTED and MADE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

SO ORDERED, this 30th day of August, 2016.

S/ C. Ashley Royal

C. ASHLEY ROYAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SSH