Hollingsworth v. Berryhill, 1:16CV1316. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20180327g87
Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2018
Summary: ORDER LORETTA C. BIGGS , District Judge . On February 13, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Plaintiff filed objections, (ECF No. 21), within the time limit prescribed by Section 636, and filed amended objections, (ECF No. 22), thereafter. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's objections and amended objections de novo and finds that they do not change the substance of the United States Magistra
Summary: ORDER LORETTA C. BIGGS , District Judge . On February 13, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Plaintiff filed objections, (ECF No. 21), within the time limit prescribed by Section 636, and filed amended objections, (ECF No. 22), thereafter. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's objections and amended objections de novo and finds that they do not change the substance of the United States Magistrat..
More
ORDER
LORETTA C. BIGGS, District Judge.
On February 13, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Plaintiff filed objections, (ECF No. 21), within the time limit prescribed by Section 636, and filed amended objections, (ECF No. 22), thereafter. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's objections and amended objections de novo and finds that they do not change the substance of the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, (ECF No. 19), which is affirmed and adopted.1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision finding no disability is AFFIRMED, that Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment, (ECF No. 11), is DENIED, that the Commissioner's Motion for Judgment, (ECF No. 17), is GRANTED, and that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff contends that the Recommendation did not address her claim that the ALJ failed to account for alleged limitations in her ability to complete a normal workday without interruption from psychologically based symptoms or perform at a consistent pace, based on the state agency physician worksheets. However, the ALJ took the conclusions of the state agency physicians into account in finding moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace, and in setting the RFC, and those issues were addressed in the Recommendation's discussion of concentration, persistence, or pace limitations and Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015).
Source: Leagle
