Hollinger v. Saul, No. 3:2019cv00220 - Document 19 (N.D. Miss. 2020)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Andrew Saul against James Hollinger, Jr. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 9/21/20. (ncb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hollinger v. Saul Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION JAMES HOLLINGER, JR. PLAINTIFF V. NO. 3:19CV00220-JMV ANDREW SAUL 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 applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits and 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 announced by the Court on the record at the conclusion of the parties’ oral argument during a hearing held in this matter today, the Court finds there is no reversible error, and the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.1 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 Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this, the 21st day of September, 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, 862 F.2d at 475. As pointed out during the hearing, the RFC determination in this case is supported by substantial evidence. The arguments presented by Plaintiff on this point essentially request the Court to reweigh the evidence. Plaintiff’s remaining arguments are also without merit. 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.
