Opinion
Civil Action 5:22-CV-48 (MTT)
03-20-2023
N.J.U., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER
MARC T. TREADWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
On January 30, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle recommended that the Commissioner's denial of Plaintiff N.J.U.'s application for benefits be affirmed. Doc. 16. N.J.U. was instructed to file any objections to the Recommendation within 14 days. Id. at 11. After the 14-day objection deadline passed and no objections were filed, the Court adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and affirmed the Commissioner's decision. Doc. 17. On March 8, 2023-more than three weeks after the objection deadline- N.J.U. objected to the Recommendation. Doc. 19. But even reviewing the Recommendation de novo, the Court's conclusion remains the same. See Doc. 17.
Judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is limited to two determinations: (1) whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence, and (2) whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards. Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). Reviewing courts may not “decide the facts anew, reweigh evidence, or substitute their judgment for that of the [Commissioner].” Id. (quoting Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n. 8 (11th Cir.2004)) (alteration in original). The Commissioner's decision must stand if it is supported by substantial evidence, even if that decision is against the preponderance of the evidence. Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158-59 (11th Cir. 2004).
N.J.U. does not argue that the Commissioner applied the wrong legal standard or that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Doc. 19. Rather, N.J.U.'s objection, like her brief in opposition to the Commissioner's decision, merely recounts her physical and psychological impairments. Id. at 1-2. She contends that the Commissioner's decision was “unfair” because she “believe[s] in [her] heart that [she] was disabled before 2016.” Id. at 1. As outlined in the Recommendation, because the Commissioner applied the correct legal standard and the decision is supported by substantial evidence, the Court once again affirms the denial of Plaintiff N.J.U.'s application for benefits. See Doc. 16.
SO ORDERED