Filed: Sep. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 19, 2016
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN F. WALTER , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, Joint Stipulation, Administrative Record, and all other records on file as well as the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. On August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the R. & R. The Court has made a de novo determination of those portions of the R. & R. to which the objections pertained. Althoug
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN F. WALTER , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, Joint Stipulation, Administrative Record, and all other records on file as well as the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. On August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the R. & R. The Court has made a de novo determination of those portions of the R. & R. to which the objections pertained. Although..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JOHN F. WALTER, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, Joint Stipulation, Administrative Record, and all other records on file as well as the Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. On August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the R. & R. The Court has made a de novo determination of those portions of the R. & R. to which the objections pertained.
Although many of Plaintiff's objections simply repeat arguments in the Joint Stipulation — and therefore the Court does not address them because they were adequately considered in the R. & R. — certain of her contentions warrant discussion.
Plaintiff complains that the Magistrate Judge did not take into account "the periods of exacerbation and remission that is [sic] characteristic of multiple sclerosis." (Objs. at 3.) But the Magistrate Judge specifically noted Dr. Malcolm Shaner's diagnosis to that effect (see, e.g., R. & R. at 10 (noting doctor's diagnosis of "relapsing/remitting" multiple sclerosis)) and observed that Dr. Shaner nonetheless found that Plaintiff's multiple sclerosis consistently improved over the course of two years (see id. at 8-10, 17).1
Plaintiff also writes that "Plaintiff's medications and their side-effects were generally ignored." (Objs. at 7.) But the Magistrate Judge thoroughly discussed Plaintiff's medicines, explaining what they were and how they affected Plaintiff's symptoms. (See, e.g., R. & R. at 9 & n.6 (noting prescription for Copaxone and describing what it was used for), 10 (noting that doctor observed that Plaintiff was "doing well" on Copaxone), 11 & n.7 (noting that although Plaintiff was prescribed psychiatric medication she later admitted that she never took it), 25-26 (discussing various medications), 40 (noting that Plaintiff claimed her medicines made her fall asleep), 42-43 (finding that Plaintiff's conditions were effectively treated with various medicines).) Plaintiff does not identify what side effects the Magistrate Judge allegedly failed to consider.
Having reviewed the record, the Court concurs with and accepts the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that judgment be entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner and dismissing this action.
