MURRAY v. COLVIN, 13-40081-RGS. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
Number: infdco20150112723
Visitors: 19
Filed: Jan. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD G. STEARNS, District Judge. I thoroughly agree with Magistrate Judge Bowler's exhaustive analysis of the record in this appeal of the determination of the Commissioner of Social Security that appellant Jean Murray is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and is therefore ineligible for Supplemental Security Income Benefits. 1 Consequently, the Recommendation is ADOPTED, the Commissioner's motion to affirm
Summary: ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD G. STEARNS, District Judge. I thoroughly agree with Magistrate Judge Bowler's exhaustive analysis of the record in this appeal of the determination of the Commissioner of Social Security that appellant Jean Murray is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and is therefore ineligible for Supplemental Security Income Benefits. 1 Consequently, the Recommendation is ADOPTED, the Commissioner's motion to affirm t..
More
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RICHARD G. STEARNS, District Judge.
I thoroughly agree with Magistrate Judge Bowler's exhaustive analysis of the record in this appeal of the determination of the Commissioner of Social Security that appellant Jean Murray is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and is therefore ineligible for Supplemental Security Income Benefits.1 Consequently, the Recommendation is ADOPTED, the Commissioner's motion to affirm the decision is ALLOWED, and the appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice.2 The Clerk will enter judgment for the Commissioner and close the case.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. On appeal, Murray attacks the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) findings as to her Residual Functional Capacity (for a purported failure to take fully into account her limitations), as well as the ALJ's evaluation of her credibility. Like Magistrate Judge Bowler, I find no error in the ALJ's methodology, factual findings, or application of the law and I do not propose to attempt to improve upon her careful recitation of the ALJ's assessment of the medical evidence. I also agree that credibility determinations by an ALJ, when supported as they are here by specific findings, are entitled to deference and are not be disturbed on review.
2. Murray has filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (which issued on December 23, 2014). Murray is represented by counsel.
Source: Leagle
