Hudson v. Astrue, No. 4:2010cv03823 - Document 14 (S.D. Tex. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER entered ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT re: GRANTING 9 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment, DENYING 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment, ADOPTING 13 Memorandum and Recommendations. Case terminated on 3/12/12.(Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )

Download PDF
Hudson v. Astrue Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION EDDIE MARIE HUDSON, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-10-3823 ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT This court has reviewed the Memorandum and Recommendation on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment of the United States Magistrate Judge signed on February 16, 2012 and made a de novo determination. Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219 (5th Cir. 1989). No objections have been filed. Based on the pleadings, the record, and the applicable law, the court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation as this court’s Memorandum and Order. This court finds and concludes that the motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff, Eddie Marie Hudson, should be denied and the cross-motion filed by the defendant, the Commission of Social Security, should be granted. This court specifically finds and concludes that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision denying social security benefits was supported by substantial evidence showing that she did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals one of the listed impairments, that she had the residual functional capacity to perform light work within certain parameters, and that there were jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that she could perform. This court also finds and concludes that the ALJ met his burden of explaining why he discredited the plaintiff’s subjective complaints of limitations and there is substantial evidence to support that result. None of the other Dockets.Justia.com grounds the plaintiff asserted for remanding have merit, for the reasons identified in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation. Accordingly, this case is dismissed, with prejudice. This is a final judgment. SIGNED on March 12, 2012, at Houston, Texas. ______________________________________ Lee H. Rosenthal United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.