Naomi Haynes v. SSA, No. 12-31029 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-31029 Document: 00512223192 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-31029 Summary Calendar April 29, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk NAOMI L. HAYNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 2:11-CV-2289 Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Naomi Haynes s application for Supplemental Security Income Benefits * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 12-31029 Document: 00512223192 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2013 No. 12-60758 was denied, and the denial was upheld by an administrative law judge. The Commissioner s Appeals Council denied review, and Haynes sought relief in the district court. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for recommendation. He issued a detailed and comprehensive thirty-nine-page opinion recommending that the complaint be dismissed. The district court accepted the recommendation and entered final judgment, which Haynes appeals. The magistrate judge carefully considered all the evidence and concluded, inter alia, that the Commissioner s decision is supported by substantial evidence. The magistrate judge correctly concluded, for example, that Haynes does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals any of the listed impairments, that she is capable of performing her past relevant work, and that there are other available jobs that she can perform. There is no reversible error by the Commissioner or the district court. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons convincingly explained by the magistrate 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.