Dawson v. Apfel

Full title: ORA DAWSON v. KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Aug 6, 2001

Civil Action No. 00-1334, Section "L" (1) (E.D. La. Aug. 6, 2001)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 00-1334, Section "L" (1)

August 6, 2001

ORDER

ELDON E. FALLON, U.S. District Judge

Before the Court are the Plaintiff's Objections to the Findings and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court delayed ruling in this case because Plaintiff's counsel verbally informed the Court that Plaintiff had additional documentation that she wished the Court to consider. However, months have passed and no material has been received. The Court cannot delay a ruling in this case any longer. The Court, having considered the complaint, the record, the applicable law, the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and the plaintiff's Objections to the Findings and Recommendations, hereby DENIES the Objections and approves the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and adopts it as its own opinion in this matter.

In her objections, Plaintiff states that pages 17, 18, 20, and 21 of her Motion for Summary Judgment were omitted from her motion when it was submitted to the Magistrate Judge for review. However, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed as document number 9 of the Court's official record is complete and includes pages 17, 18, 20, and 21.

Plaintiff argues that this Court should reverse the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner") because there is sufficient evidence to support Plaintiff's testimony regarding her symptoms of pain, fatigue, decreased concentration, and generalized joint pain. However, Plaintiff has misstated this Court's standard of review. The Fifth Circuit instructs that if the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record they must be affirmed by the Court. See Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). The Court may not reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for the Commissioner's, even if the evidence could allow for a different finding. See Warncke v. Harris, 619 F.2d 412, 416 (5th Cir. 1980). In this case, as the Magistrate Judge found, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's findings and, therefore, those findings must be affirmed.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court approves the Findings and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge and the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.