From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Jan 24, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:06-3514-HFF-BM (D.S.C. Jan. 24, 2008)

Summary

finding that additional mental health consultations were not required when medical history included few consultations, which reflected mainly self-reported symptoms

Summary of this case from Benton v. Astrue

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:06-3514-HFF-BM.

January 24, 2008


ORDER


This case was filed as a Social Security action. Plaintiff, represented by fine counsel, seeks judicial review of the final decision of Defendant denying Plaintiff disability benefits. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that Defendant's decision denying benefits be affirmed. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on December 21, 2007, and Plaintiff filed his objections to the Report on January 11, 2008.

First, Plaintiff complains that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was inconsistent and that he inexplicably rejected Plaintiff's mental impairments. (Objections 1-2.) Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to mention the state court findings. (Objections 2-3.) Third, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ ignored the relevant regulatory factors in accessing pain. (Objections 3-4.) Fourth, Plaintiff maintains that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate and consider all of Plaintiff's impairments. (Objections 4.)

The Court has made a de novo review of the relevant portions of the record, as well as the applicable law, and finds no reversible error. Simply stated, and as observed by the Magistrate Judge in his comprehensive and well-reasoned Report, under the standard set forth in Shively v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 987 (4th Cir. 1984), "the record contains substantial evidence to support the conclusion of [Defendant] that . . . Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act during the relevant time period." (Report 14.)

Therefore, after a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objections, adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that Defendant's decision denying benefits be AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Moore v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Jan 24, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:06-3514-HFF-BM (D.S.C. Jan. 24, 2008)

finding that additional mental health consultations were not required when medical history included few consultations, which reflected mainly self-reported symptoms

Summary of this case from Benton v. Astrue

stating that a claimant's depression was a "severe impairment" in the facts section of the decision was clearly a scrivener's error because the ALJ analyzed it as a non-severe impairment "at length" in the remainder of the opinion

Summary of this case from Arnold v. Berryhill

stating that a claimant's depression was a "severe impairment" in the facts section of the decision was clearly a scrivener's error because the ALJ analyzed it as a non-severe impairment "at length" in the remainder of the opinion

Summary of this case from Sawyers v. Colvin
Case details for

Moore v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:MATTHEW MOORE, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division

Date published: Jan 24, 2008

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:06-3514-HFF-BM (D.S.C. Jan. 24, 2008)

Citing Cases

Wray v. Kijakazi

Clearly, the ALJ's failure to provide the record cite to the 2018 DBQ after articulating the persuasiveness…

Sawyers v. Colvin

The second are cases in which the typographical error is abundantly clear in light of the contents of the…