Filed: Sep. 04, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 04, 2015
Summary: ORDER MAURICE M. PAUL , Senior District Judge . This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated February 10, 2015. (Doc. 14). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed objections at doc. 17. I have made a de novo review based on those objections. Having considered the Repor
Summary: ORDER MAURICE M. PAUL , Senior District Judge . This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated February 10, 2015. (Doc. 14). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed objections at doc. 17. I have made a de novo review based on those objections. Having considered the Report..
More
ORDER
MAURICE M. PAUL, Senior District Judge.
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated February 10, 2015. (Doc. 14). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed objections at doc. 17. I have made a de novo review based on those objections. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. The undersigned writes separately to address an issue raised in Plaintiff's objections.
Over the course of three pages of his objections, Plaintiff pastes excerpts from a recent Eleventh Circuit decision, Himes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 585 F. App'x 758 (11th Cir. 2014). See Doc. 17 at 3-5. Plaintiff provides no context for this citation, arguing only that it is a "remarkably similar case" in which the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's decision. Id. at 3. To the extent that Plaintiff appears to argue that Himes warrants a reversal in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff's objection is entirely without merit as Himes is distinguishable. In Himes, the Eleventh Circuit found error in the ALJ's credibility determination, noting that the ALJ had omitted from his decision a discussion of certain of the claimant's diagnosed mental illnesses. Himes, 585 F. App'x at 767. Unlike Himes, in this case, Plaintiff has pointed to no diagnosed impairments that were omitted from the ALJ's discussion. To the contrary, as thoroughly discussed in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the ALJ clearly articulated his reasoning for only partially crediting Plaintiff, expressly discussing and relying upon the record medical evidence.
In short, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's objections lack merit and the ALJ's credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 14) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. The decision of the Commissioner, denying benefits, is AFFIRMED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
