Filed: Apr. 11, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2012
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge. The plaintiff, Jerry J. Moore, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) denying his claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 401-433. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Supplemental Report and Recommendation 2 wherein he s
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge. The plaintiff, Jerry J. Moore, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) denying his claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 401-433. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Supplemental Report and Recommendation 2 wherein he su..
More
ORDER
JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.
The plaintiff, Jerry J. Moore, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner) denying his claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Supplemental Report and Recommendation2 wherein he suggests that the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits should be affirmed. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The parties were advised of their right to submit objections to the Report and Recommendation. The plaintiff's objections to the Supplemental Report are duplicative of the issues that were presented to and addressed by the Magistrate Judge. Having reviewed the record in light of the plaintiff's objections and under the appropriate standards, the court adopts the Supplemental Report and concurs with both the reasoning and the result reached by the Magistrate Judge.
It is the duty of the ALJ reviewing the case, and not the responsibility of the courts, to make findings of fact and resolve conflicts in the evidence. This court's scope of review is limited to the determination of whether the findings of the Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence taking the record as a whole, Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996), and whether the correct law was applied," Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2002).
After a careful review of the record, including the findings of the ALJ, the briefs from the plaintiff and the Commissioner, the Magistrate Judge's Reports, and the plaintiff's objections thereto, this court finds the Supplemental Report is proper and is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
