Filed: Feb. 11, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 11, 2020
Summary: ORDER WENDY B. VITTER , District Judge . Pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act (the "Act"), 42 U.S.C. 405(g), plaintiff, Jay Doucet, appeals the final decision of Nancy A. Berryhill, the acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner"), denying his claim for disability insurance benefits and period of disability under Title II of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 423, and his claim for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1
Summary: ORDER WENDY B. VITTER , District Judge . Pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act (the "Act"), 42 U.S.C. 405(g), plaintiff, Jay Doucet, appeals the final decision of Nancy A. Berryhill, the acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner"), denying his claim for disability insurance benefits and period of disability under Title II of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 423, and his claim for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 13..
More
ORDER
WENDY B. VITTER, District Judge.
Pursuant to Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act (the "Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), plaintiff, Jay Doucet, appeals the final decision of Nancy A. Berryhill, the acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner"), denying his claim for disability insurance benefits and period of disability under Title II of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423, and his claim for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1382. Plaintiff asserts that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"): (1) committed reversible error in finding that Plaintiff's chronic kidney disease did not constitute a severe impairment; and (2) failed to apply the correct legal standard in assessing Plaintiff's residual functional capacity, which finding is not supported by substantial evidence.1
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits be affirmed, and that this action be dismissed with prejudice.2 Specifically, the Magistrate Judge found that substantial evidence supports: (1) the ALJ's finding that Plaintiff's kidney disease is not a severe impairment; and (2) the ALJ's finding regarding Plaintiff's residual functional capacity. Plaintiff timely-filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.3
Having carefully considered the administrative record, the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation,4 and Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations,5 the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation6 and ADOPTS the Report as the Court's opinion herein.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED, and that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
