Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 4:2021cv00040 - Document 22 (E.D. Va. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER: The Court hereby ADOPTS AND APPROVES in full the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation: Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, the Commissioner's 16 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen on 9/28/22. (mrees, )

Download PDF

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 22 Case 4:21-cv-00040-AWA-LRL Document 22 Filed 09/28/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 116 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Newport News Division CARYN D.M. 1, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 4:21cv40 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. FINAL ORDER Plaintiff Caryn D.M. (“Plaintiff”) brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Social Security Commissioner (“Commissioner”) denying her claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 72 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and by order of reference dated July 20, 2021 (ECF No. 9), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Judge Leonard issued his R&R on June 8, 2022 (ECF No. 19), recommending that the Court grant the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary 1 The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States recommends that, due to substantial privacy concerns, federal courts use only the first name and last initial of claimants in Social Security cases. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:21-cv-00040-AWA-LRL Document 22 Filed 09/28/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 117 Judgment and affirm the Commissioner’s final decision. Plaintiff filed timely objections (ECF No. 20), and the Commissioner responded (ECF No. 21). A district judge must make a de novo determination as to any portion of the R&R to which timely objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)–(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Here, Plaintiff objects that Judge Leonard improperly relied on the ALJ’s findings at Step 2 to support the ALJ’s analysis at Steps 4 and 5 and that Judge Leonard erred in finding that the ALJ properly considered and analyzed the supportability and consistency of Dr. Squires’ opinion. The Commissioner responds that the R&R properly applies the deferential substantial evidence standard; that the R&R properly reads the ALJ’s decision as a whole in considering aspects of the Step 2 discussion as part of the substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s explanation at Steps 4 and 5; and that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s consideration of Dr. Squires’ opinion. Having reviewed the record and examined the objections filed by Plaintiff to the Report and Recommendation, and having made de novo findings with respect to the portions objected to, the Court finds no error with Judge Leonard’s proposed disposition. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS AND APPROVES in full the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation: Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED, the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The parties are ADVISED that an appeal from this Final Order may be 2 Case 4:21-cv-00040-AWA-LRL Document 22 Filed 09/28/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 118 commenced by forwarding a written notice of appeal to the Clerk of the United States District Court, United States Courthouse, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. This written notice must be received by the Clerk within sixty days from the date of this Final Order. The Clerk is REQUESTED to mail a copy of this Order to all parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Arenda L. Wright Allen United States District Judge September 28, 2022 Norfolk, Virginia 3

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.