ARTHUR D. SPATT, District Judge.
Matthew Gillespie ("Gillespie" or "the Plaintiff") commenced this action pursuant to the Social Security Act ("the Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging a final determination by Michael J. Astrue, the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") that he was ineligible for Social Security disability benefits. Presently before the Court is the Defendant's unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P.") 12(c). For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.
On April 20, 2005, Gillespie filed an application for Social Security disability benefits, alleging a disability and inability to work since May 15, 2004, due to the impairment of his neck, back, right arm, and right hand. (Administrative Transcript ("Tr.") at 282.) On July 15, 2005, the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied his application and Gillespie made a timely request on August 1, 2005 for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ)". (Tr. at 41.)
On July 5, 2007, a hearing was held before ALJ Seymour Rayner (the "ALJ"). (Tr. at 256.) Following the hearing, in a decision dated August 2, 2007, ALJ Rayner denied Gillespie's claim for disability benefits. (Tr. at 38.) Gillespie sought review of the ALJ's decision by the Appeals Council. (Tr. at 49.) On December 21, 2007, the Appeals Council remanded the case back to the ALJ because ALJ Rayner had erroneously considered December 31, 2005 as the date the Plaintiff was last insured for disability benefits, instead of the correct date of December 31, 2006. (Tr. at 57.) The Appeals Council also ordered the ALJ to give further consideration to the "treating and examining source opinion" and "nonexamining source opinion"; the Plaintiff's subjective complaints; and the Plaintiff's maximum residual functional capacity. In addition, the Appeals Counsel instructed the ALJ to provide more rationale in support of his evaluations. (Tr. at 57-58.) Also, the ALJ was to enlist the help of a vocational expert to ascertain appropriate jobs for the Plaintiff and these jobs' availability in the national economy. (Tr. at 58.)
On August 5, 2008, a subsequent hearing was held before ALJ Rayner. (Tr. at 8.) On September 4, 2008, ALJ Rayner again issued a decision denying Gillespie's claim for disability, finding him not disabled. (Tr. at 19.) On March 26, 2009, the Appeals Council denied the Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision, thus making ALJ Rayner's decision dated September 4, 2008, the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. at 2.) On or about May 27, 2009, Gillespie commenced the present appeal from that decision.
Gillespie was born on April 16, 1962, and was 43 years old at the time he filed his claim for disability benefits. (Tr. at 259.) He has a high school diploma and was working as a painter/foreman for Long Island Wallpaper when he sustained the injury that forms the basis of his claim. (Tr. at 282-83.) His employment required him to supervise a crew, lift heavy objects, and do manual labor, such as painting and sanding. (Tr. at 283.) His supervisory duties included giving employees assignments and assuring that the workers had the proper materials at the work site. (
According to Gillespie's testimony before the ALJ, on or about May 14, 2004, he injured his back, neck, right arm and right hand in a workplace injury while carrying a forty foot extension ladder. (Tr. at 263.) Gillespie is right hand dominant. (Tr. at 286.) He claims that he damaged a nerve in his right arm and suffered two herniated discs in his back. (Tr. at 282.)
On or about May 18, 2004, three days after the Plaintiff's workplace injury, he sought medical treatment from Mather Memorial Hospital. (Tr. at 14.) A physical examination revealed that Gillespie was suffering from a muscle spasm and that the range of motion in his back had decreased. (Tr. at 15.) X-rays of his "cervical spine revealed discogenic disease and degenerative arthritic changes of the lower cervical spine as well as some loss of the normal curvature. He was diagnosed with acute cervical and dorsal myofascial strain." (
The Plaintiff contends that following the injury, he suffered pain emanating from his right shoulder blade to his right hand due to the herniated discs in his back. (Tr. at 285.) Gillespie testified at the relevant underlying hearing that he is incapable of fully extending his fingers on his right hand and that his motor skills and strength in his right hand have weakened due to the nerve entrapment in that hand. (Tr. at 286.)
In October 2006, Gillespie underwent carpel tunnel surgery. However, he testified that "[i[f anything it made it worse." (Tr. at 287.) Gillespie stopped pursing rehabilitation for the carpel tunnel after being told by doctors that the nerve was dead and would require exploratory surgery to fix. (
On May 20, 2004, Dr. Levin began treating the Plaintiff for complaints "of right scapular and right index finger pain with right-hand weakness." (Tr. at 15.) Dr. Levin's examination revealed that Gillespie had a full range of motion in his neck, but suffered from mild tightness around the trapezial area. (Tr. at 213.) Gillespie's shoulders had a full range of motion, but had pain on elevation. (
On a May 27, 2004 examination by Dr. Levin, testing revealed that Gillespie had tingling in his hand and fifth finger. (Tr. at 212.) Gillespie continued to suffer from tenodesis of the fingers. (
On June 22, 2004, Dr. Gutman examined the Plaintiff for complaints of right-sided neck and shoulder pain radiating down his right arm, numbness in the fourth and fifth fingers of his right hand, difficulty extending his fingers, and moderate lower back pain. (Tr. at 149.) At that time, the Plaintiff said that the pain had improved, and he had switched from Vicodin to Tylenol. (
Dr. Golpariani was referred to the Plaintiff for purposes of pain management by Dr. Levin. At the hearing in front of the ALJ, it was established that Dr. Golpariani injected the Plaintiff with cervical epidural steroids on July 1, and July 22, 2004. (Tr. at 215-16, 220-21.)
On August 24, 2004, Dr. Poole examined Gillespie at the request of Dr. Gutman and noted that while Gillespie's neck had considerably improved, his right hand had weakened. (Tr. at 138.) The examination also revealed that Gillespie "had full muscle strength, tone and coordination in all muscle groups of the upper and lower extremities with the exception of the right hand where marked wasting was noted of all the intrinsic muscles of the right hand." (
On September 3, 2004, the Plaintiff underwent an electromyography ("EMG") and nerve conduction velocity ("NCV") study. (Tr. at 140.) The results were "consistent with a denervation of the deep radial nerve musculature on the right." (Tr. at 140A.) The results also indicated "bilateral entrapments of the median nerves in the carpal tunnels" and "evidence of entrapment of the ulnar motor nerves at the level of the elbow bilaterally." (
On September 10, 2004, Dr. Poole revised his earlier impression and found that tests were more indicative of radial nerve palsy, bilateral carpal tunnel syndromes, and bilateral ulnar nerve entrapments. (Tr. at 141.) On October 21, 2004, Dr, Poole noted that the Plaintiff's radial nerve distribution was strengthening, but that ulnar nerves and carpal tunnel problems persisted. (Tr. at 137.) On workers' compensation forms from August 24, 2004 to October 21, 2004, Dr. Poole checked off boxes indicating that the Plaintiff was totally disabled from regular duties or work. (Tr. 144-48.) A June 12, 2006, an EMG/NCV report by Dr. Poole indicated an entrapment of median nerves and both wrists. (Tr. at 187-88.)
In an April 23, 2007 examination, Dr. Poole noted that Gillespie could extend his fingers when his right wrist was in its normal position, but when the wrist was extended, the Plaintiff could not extend his fingers. (Tr. at 243.) An EMG test performed on May 3, 2007 on the right upper extremity was normal. (Tr. 240-41.)
In July 2008, Dr. Poole stated on workers' compensation forms that the Plaintiff was partially disabled from performing regular duties or work. (Tr. at 50, 251, 254.) On a July 1, 2008 examination, the Plaintiff complained of hand weakness and Dr. Poole found a diminished range of motion in his neck. (Tr. at 255.) The Plaintiff had loss of strength of the extensor indicis proprius, the extensor digitorum communis, and the extensor digiti quinti proprius in the right upper extremity. (
On July 29, 2008, Dr. Poole noted that the results of an EMG did not support a radial nerve injury diagnosis, and that the results were consistent with damage to the medial cord of the brachial plexus. (Tr. at 250.) On the workers' compensation form for July 29, 2008, Dr. Poole stated that Gillespie was partially disabled. (
On November 16, 2004, the Plaintiff underwent an MRI by Dr. Albert. The results showed no evidence to suggest nerve entrapment syndrome or muscle atrophy. (Tr. at 153.) The results did show common extensor tendinopathy and radial collateral ligamentous complex thickening. (
On behalf of Gillespie, Dr. Sampson examined him for the purpose of evaluating if he should be entitled to workers' compensation from December 10, 2004 to January 18, 2005. After assessing the ulnar nerve lesion and carpal tunnel syndrome, Dr. Sampson indicated on the worker's compensation forms that the Plaintiff was totally disabled from regular duties or work. (Tr. at 155-59.)
On March 14, 2005, the Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Mallen for complaints of pain radiating from his neck down to his right arm, and motor weakness in his right hand. (Tr. at 161.) The examination showed that the Plaintiff had no tenderness to palpation over the cervical spine or over the right and left-sided paraspinal muscles, that he had full rotation of his neck, and that he had full lateral bending of the neck. (
After reviewing the Plaintiff's previous MRI and EMG results, Dr. Mallen diagnosed the Plaintiff with "[m]ultiple level disk herniation and foraminal encroachment and spinal stenosis with symptoms of radiculopathy into the right upper extremity." (
On April 28, 2005, Dr. Shapiro evaluated Gillespie for complaints of neck and right arm pain, along with difficulty in the extension of his fingers on his right hand. (Tr. at 185.) The examination revealed that Gillespie had dysrhythmia and pain on the cervical spine. (
In a follow-up examination on March 9, 2006, the Plaintiff reported difficulties with his neck and back, but found physical therapy to be helpful. (Tr. at 176.) A cervical spine examination revealed dysrhythmia, a spasm, as well as pain about the cervical spine and into the right medial scapular on palpation. (
On June 14, 2005, Dr. Iqbal examined the Plaintiff on behalf of the SSA. (Tr. at 16.) Gillespie complained of neck, back, shoulder and right arm pain, and difficulty extending his fingers on his right hand when his wrist was extended. (Tr. at 164.) Gillespie reported that his back pain was worsened by prolonged sitting and prolonged standing. (
On June 20, 2005, Dr. Rho evaluated Gillespie for complaints of neck pain, tingling in his right hand, and numbness in his fourth and fifth fingers of his right hand. (Tr. at 182.) On examination, Dr. Rho found that Gillespie had positive Tinel and elbow hyperflexion tests at his right elbow, resulting in ulnar paresthesias. (
On July 12, 2006, Dr. Sun examined the Plaintiff for complaints of numbness, tingling, and pain in his right hand. (Tr. at 204.) Dr. Sun's impression was right wrist carpal tunnel syndrome, and the Plaintiff agreed to surgical treatment. (Tr. at 207.) On October 3, 2006, Dr. Sun performed right wrist carpal tunnel release on the Plaintiff. (Tr. at 208). Follow-up appointments with Dr. Sun from October 11, 2006 to January 17, 2007 indicate that Gillespie had stiffness in his right hand. (Tr. at 196-202.) An examination on April 11, 2007 revealed positive atrophy of the thenar muscle and stiffness of the fingers in Gillespie's right hand. (Tr. at 223.)
Chiropractor Goldman treated Gillespie for cervical radiculitis/neuritis and cervical dysfunction in October, November, and December of 2006; January of 2007; and May and June of 2008. (Tr. at 189-95, 244-47.) On the workers' compensation forms, Chiropractor Goldman stated that Gillespie was totally disabled from regular duties or work. (
Notably, the ALJ gave no weight to the assessment of disability by Dr. Goldman, who was not considered to be an acceptable medical source whose opinion would be controlling.
Finally, on February 7, 2007, Dr. Rubin evaluated and treated the Plaintiff for pain of his cervical spine. (Tr. at 233.) On examination, Dr. Rubin found the Plaintiff to have mild reductions in the strength of his fingers, thumb abduction, and grasp strength of his right hand. (Tr. at 234.) The examination showed altered sensation involving the right C6 dermatome distribution and decreased sensation of the ulnar nerve distribution, but a Tinel test at the wrists bilaterally was negative. (
At the July 5, 2007 hearing before the ALJ, Dr. David Vandegroot, a vocational expert who appeared on behalf of the SSA, testified that the Plaintiff's past work according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) would be characterized as skilled and semi-skilled. (Tr. at 301.) As a result of this past work, Dr. Vandegroot testified that Gillespie acquired certain skills, including the ability to interpret work specifications such as blueprints; the ability to use a shop mat; and the ability to use hand and power tools. (
On September 4, 2008, the ALJ issued his second and final decision. Specifically, he evaluated Gillespie's impairments, credibility and residual functional capacity through December 31, 2006, and not only through December 31, 2005, as he had in the previous determination.
The issue the ALJ confronted with was whether Gillespie was "disabled" under sections 216(j) and 223 of the Act. After considering all of the evidence, he concluded that the claimant was not under a disability within the meaning of the act from May 15, 2004 through the date last insured, which was December 31, 2006. In particular, he found that:
(Tr. at 13.)
Next, the ALJ found that "[a]fter careful consideration of the entire record, . . . through the date last insured, the claimant had the residual functional capacity to perform a wide range of light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567, in that he was able to sit for six hours in an eight-hour day, stand/walk for six hours in an eight-hour day and lift/carry up to 10 pounds. He is limited in the repetitive use of his hands." (
The ALJ went on to affirm that the "[t]hrough the date last insured, the claimant was unable to perform any past relevant work" as a painter, foreman, bowling alley mechanic, construction laborer or shipping/receiving clerk. (Tr. at 18.) The ALJ based this on the vocational expert's testimony that these jobs all required a medical level of exertion and repetitive use of his hand.
However, the ALJ also found that the claimant was 44 years old; had at least a high school education and was able to communicate in English; and had acquired work skills from past relevant work that were transferrable to other occupations with jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. Based upon these findings, along with Gillespie's residual functional capacity, the ALJ determined that the Plaintiff was not under a disability as defined in the Act, at any time from May 15, 2004 through December 31, 2006. (Tr. at 19.)
An unsuccessful claimant for Social Security benefits may bring an action in federal district court to obtain judicial review of the denial of their benefits "within sixty days after the mailing . . . of notice of such decision or within such further time as the Commissioner of Social Security may allow." 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). When reviewing the decision of the Commissioner, the Court may set aside the determination only if the decision was based on legal error or was not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
In addition, the Commissioner must accord special evidentiary weight to the opinion of the treating physician, as long as the treating physician's opinion is supported by medically acceptable techniques; results from frequent examinations; and is consistent "with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record."
In determining whether the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence, the Court must "examine the entire record, including contradictory evidence and evidence from which conflicting inferences can be drawn."
To qualify for disability benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A), a plaintiff must establish his "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment . . . which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months."
Federal regulations set forth a five step analysis that the ALJ must follow when evaluating disability claims, including: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a "severe" medically determinable physical impairment which will impair the claimant from doing basic work activities; (3) whether the claimant's severe medical impairment, based solely on medical evidence, is a limitation that is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations; (4) an assessment of the claimant's residual functional capacity and ability to continue past relevant work despite severe impairment; and (5) an assessment of the claimant's residual functional capacity along with age, education, and work experience. As to the last stage of the inquiry, the burden shifts to the ALJ to show that the claimant can perform alternative work.
When proceeding through this five step analysis, the ALJ must consider the objective medical facts; the diagnoses or medical opinions based on these facts; the subjective evidence of pain and disability; and the claimant's educational background, age, and work experience.
In the present case, the Commissioner moved unopposed for affirmation of the denial of benefits. Although being provided with an opportunity to oppose the instant motion, the Plaintiff failed to do so. "Nevertheless, the court will view the facts most favorably to plaintiff, the non-moving party."
In this case, the ALJ adhered to the regulatory five-step sequential evaluation. First, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff met the special insured status requirements of the Act from May 15, 2004 through December 31, 2006, and that the Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 15, 2004. Second, the ALJ found that the medical evidence established that on or prior to December 31, 2006, the Plaintiff had several impairments, including neck and back pain, a herniated disc, osteoarthritis, and hand nerve pain.
Third, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff's impairment or combination of impairments did not meet or equal in severity the clinical criteria of any impairment listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 1. Fourth, the ALJ evaluated the Plaintiff's residual functional capacity and found that on or prior to December 31, 2006, he remained capable of performing work that involved sitting up to six hours in an eight-hour workday; standing/walking up to two hours in an eight-hour workday; and lifting/carrying up to ten pounds occasionally. Consequently, the ALJ concluded that considering the Plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, he had acquired work skills from past relevant work that were transferable to other occupations with jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy and thus was not under a disability as defined under the Act. Accordingly, the ALJ applied the correct legal standard.
Next, the Court will assess whether the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence. There must be "relevant evidence [that] a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support [the] conclusion."
Residual functional capacity ("RFC") is the most that a person can do despite his or her limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a)( 1). "Ordinarily, RFC is the individual's maximum remaining ability to do sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis, and the RFC assessment must include a discussion of the individual's abilities on that basis. A `regular and continuing basis' means 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule."
When the ALJ makes an assessment as to RFC, he should consider a claimant's physical abilities, mental abilities, symptomatology, including pain and other limitations that could interfere with work activities on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a). A finding as to RFC will be upheld on review when there is substantial evidence in the record to support the requirements listed in the regulations.
As noted above, the ALJ concluded that Gillespie retained the RFC to perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567:
20 C.F.R. § 404.1567. The ALJ found that Gillespie could perform a wide range of light work, in that he was able to sit for six hours in an eight-hour day; stand/walk for six hours in an eight-hour day; and lift/carry up to ten pounds, although he was limited in the repetitive use of his hands.
The ALJ partly based this decision upon the testimony of the consultative examiner, Dr. Iqbal. At the hearing, Dr. Iqbal found that the Plaintiff had no limitations as to sitting, standing, or walking short and long distances. He also found that Gillespie had normal gait and station, had full rotation or his cervical spine, as well as full strength in his proximal and distal muscles. He did find that Gillespie had "reducible limitation of joints during extended wrists condition trying to extend all fingers." (Tr. at 166.) However, Dr. Iqbal found that there was no joint instability or muscle atrophy, no abnormalities in the thoracic or lumbar spine or in the lower extremities, and that Gillespie had full motion of his shoulders, elbows, forearms, writs, and fingers bilaterally. According to Dr. Iqbal, the Plaintiff had 4+/5 grip strength in his right hand and had no limitation for buttoning a button, zipping a zipper or tying shoelaces.
Thus, the ALJ properly relied upon Dr. Iqbal's assessment in determining Gillespie's RFC.
Of importance, the consultative examiner's report was consistent with other evidence in the record, particularly clinical assessments. For example, Dr. Levin—the Plaintiff's treating physician— found that he had a full range of motion in his neck and shoulders. To be sure, Dr. Levin found that Gillespie had difficulty flexing certain fingers on his right hand when his wrist was extended, as well as some decreased sensation in the fourth and fifth fingers. Nevertheless, manual motor testing of the upper extremity and tinel testing of elbow were both negative, and the RFC expressly included a finding that Gillespie could not perform a job that required repetitive use of his hand. As another example, Dr. Gutman—the Plaintiff's neurologist—noted that Gillespie's wrist flexion, confrontational motor exam, and bilateral grip were normal; that the range of motion in Gillespie's neck was nearly normal; and that although Gillespie had discogenic changes and a small disc herniation, Dr. Gutman did not see compression in the neural canal and did not think surgery was necessary. Again, an examination did reveal mild weakness of finger extension on the right hand. However, that does not render the ALJ's finding unsupported by substantial evidence, as the RFC was determined with this in consideration.
The Plaintiff's next treating physician, Dr. Poole, found marked wasting of the intrinsic muscles of the right hand, and EMG results indicated a "denervation of the deep radial nerve musculature on the right" as well as "bilateral entrapments of the median nerves in the carpal tunnels". (Tr. at 140.) He noted that Gillespie's carpal tunnel problems persisted, and eventually the results of an EMG were consistent with damage to the medial cord of the brachial plexus. On the other hand, Dr. Albert conducted an MRI and found no evidence to suggest nerve entrapment or muscle atrophy. Rather, the results showed common extensor tendinopathy and radial collateral ligamentous complex thickening.
In 2005, Gillespie began treatment with Dr. Mallen. His examination showed that Gillespie had full rotation of his neck and that he had full lateral bending of the neck, although there was stiffness with this motion. He also found that Gillespie had full muscle strength in bilateral shoulder shrug, biceps, triceps, and distal wrist flexion, extension, as well as good motor strength with the anterior interosseous nerve and ulnar nerve in his right hand. The Plaintiff next saw Dr. Shapiro, who found weakness into the extensors and intrinsics of Gillespie's right hand. However, he found that Gillespie's sensations and reflexes were intact, equal, and symmetrical. He noted that the motor function in Gillespie's hand had improved on its own. Eventually, Dr. Shapiro found that the Plaintiff's motor power was full in all distributions and that his deep tendon reflexes were intact.
Certainly, many of the Plaintiff's treating physicians opined that he was disabled with regard to workers' compensation. However, those determinations are not dispositive, because the standards for workers' compensation are different than those under the Act.
Ultimately, the determination of whether a claimant is disabled is "reserved to the Commissioner." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). Here, the Court finds that the ALJ's determination of RFC— specifically, that Gillespie could perform light work as long as there was a limitation for repetitive use of his hands—was supported by substantial evidence.
As part of the ALJ's final determination, he found that Gillespie's subjective complaints of his alleged disability were not completely credible. Gillespie had complained that he was unable to lift heavy objects, sit or stand for long periods of time, or move in certain directions. (Tr. at 44.) In addition, he contended that he was unable to open his right hand. The ALJ found that the claimant's medically determinable impairments could have been reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms. However, ALJ Rayner also found that "the claimant is not credible as the extent of his impairments. . . . the claimant's statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not credible to the extent they are inconsistent with the residual functional capacity assessment . . ." (Tr. at 14.)
"[A] claimant's subjective report of her symptoms is not controlling but must be supported by medical evidence."
Here, even though the claimant testified regarding the extent of his impairments, he also testified that was he was able to bathe himself; comb his hair; shave; go to the barber; buckle; put on a coat; button; zip a zipper; tie a bow; shop; pull a shirt overhead; do laundry; make a bed; cook; open an envelope; take out the garbage; climb stairs; eat with a knife and fork; hold a cup of tea; and open doors. Therefore, based on this wide ranging account of the Plaintiff's daily activities, it was reasonable for the ALJ to discredit Gillespie's subjective claim of total disability from all types of work.
In addition, the Plaintiff testified that he occasionally uses Tylenol or Advil for pain relief. Gillespie testified that he discontinued taking any prescription medications because they made him vomit, but the ALJ noted that there was no indication that he had ever reported this to a doctor. Gillespie also testified that he stopped going to the doctor because there was no sense in doing so. Therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ properly "resolve[d] evidentiary conflicts and [appraised] the credibility of witnesses, including the claimant."
Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ did not commit legal error and that there was substantial evidence in the record supporting his conclusion that Gillespie was still capable of performing light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567, and was therefore not disabled within the meaning of the Act.
The Court has reviewed the submission of the Defendant and the findings by the Commissioner and ALJ Rayner. For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ordered that Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted and the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
