From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Penick v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
Sep 23, 2009
CIVIL NO. 3:08CV00549 (E.D. Va. Sep. 23, 2009)

Summary

recognizing general right of ALJ to rely on state agency consultants

Summary of this case from Vines v. Saul

Opinion

CIVIL NO. 3:08CV00549.

September 23, 2009


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (R R) entered on September 4, 2009. The time to file objections has expired and neither party has objected to the R R. Having considered the matter and deeming it otherwise proper and just to do so, it is hereby ORDERED:

(1) The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the OPINION of the Court.
(2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket entry no. 14) and Motion to Remand (docket entry no. 15) are DENIED.
(3) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (docket entry no. 17) is GRANTED.
(4) The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
(5) This case is CLOSED.

Let the Clerk of the Court send a copy of this order to all counsel of record.

It is so ORDERED.


Summaries of

Penick v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
Sep 23, 2009
CIVIL NO. 3:08CV00549 (E.D. Va. Sep. 23, 2009)

recognizing general right of ALJ to rely on state agency consultants

Summary of this case from Vines v. Saul
Case details for

Penick v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:DOROTHY M. PENICK, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

Date published: Sep 23, 2009

Citations

CIVIL NO. 3:08CV00549 (E.D. Va. Sep. 23, 2009)

Citing Cases

Williamson v. Colvin

Under these circumstances, the ALJ did not err in failing to treat Plaintiff's self-prescribed and occasional…

Vines v. Saul

Although record evidence exists that could support greater limitations in the functional areas, the record…