Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2020cv00014 - Document 18 (N.D. Miss. 2020)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Commissioner of Social Security against Kenneth D. Taylor, Jr. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 11/20/20. (ncb)

Download PDF
Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 18 Case: 1:20-cv-00014-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 11/20/20 1 of 2 PageID #: 711 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION KENNETH D. TAYLOR, JR. PLAINTIFF V. NO. 1:20CV00014-JMV COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY DEFENDANT FINAL JUDGMENT This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of an unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding an application for supplemental security income. The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Court, having reviewed the record, the administrative transcript, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law and having heard oral argument, finds as follows, to-wit: For the reasons stated in the Commissioner’s brief and echoed by the Court on the record at the conclusion of the parties’ oral argument during a hearing held in this matter on November 19, 2020, the Court finds there is no reversible error, and the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.1 Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner is 1 Judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is limited to two inquiries: (1) whether substantial evidence in the record supports the Commissioner’s decision and (2) whether the decision comports with proper legal standards. See Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990). “Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971)). “It is more than a mere scintilla, and less than a preponderance.” Spellman v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Moore v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 901, 904 (5th Cir. 1990)). “A decision is supported by substantial evidence if ‘credible evidentiary choices or medical findings support the decision.’” Salmond v. Berryhill, 892 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). The court must be careful not to “reweigh the evidence or substitute . . . [its] judgment” for that Dockets.Justia.com Case: 1:20-cv-00014-JMV Doc #: 18 Filed: 11/20/20 2 of 2 PageID #: 712 hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this, the 20th day of November, 2020. /s/ Jane M. Virden U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE of the ALJ, see Hollis v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 1378, 1383 (5th Cir. 1988), even if it finds that the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's decision. Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 434 (5th Cir. 1994); Harrell v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 1988). 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.