Gaudette v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 5:2014cv00070 - Document 21 (D. Vt. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER Adopting 20 Report and Recommendation ; denying 14 MOTION for Order Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner; granting 19 MOTION for Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner. Signed by Chief Judge Christina Reiss on 10/14/2015. (law)

Download PDF
Gaudette v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 21 ... · ,· .. · ·l·y r.oURi \ ,,. I·.1 .. { ''l·'i ll ' s ' !J\('''' --~~- '\lc..··D,~·1\J1l \R . \ u ... ' "·"' 0\s .·- 1 ~ r- n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ;· ·......... SO FOR THE 20\~ OC1 \ 4 PM 4: DISTRICT OF VERMONT I PATRICIA LEE GAUDETTE, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLYIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 5:14-cv-70 OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Docs. 14, 19, & 20) This matter came before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's July 29, 2015 Report and Recommendation ("R & R"). Plaintiff Patricia Lee Gaudette filed a motion to reverse the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner"). (Doc. 14.) Defendant opposes the Plaintiff's motion and filed a motion for an order affirming the decision of the Commissioner. (Doc. 19.) Neither party has filed an objection to the R & R, and the time period to do so has expired. A district judge must make a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which an objection is made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Cullen v. United States, 194 F.3d 401, 405 (2d Cir. 1999). The district judge may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); accord Cullen, 194 F.3d at 405. A district judge, however, is not required to review the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of a report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Dockets.Justia.com In his twenty-one pageR & R, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the factual record and the pending motions and recommended that the court deny Plaintiffs motion to reverse the decision of the Commissioner and grant the Commissioner's motion to affirm. In support of that recommendation, the Magistrate Judge determined that substantial evidence supported the conclusion of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that her medical issues, which included scoliosis, skin rash, leg cramps, reflux disease, carpal tunnel syndrome, upper extremity numbness, and adjustment disorder, constituted medically determinable impairments during the alleged disability period. The Magistrate Judge further concluded that substantial evidence supported the ALJ' s credibility determination regarding Plaintiffs testimony about her impairments, pain, and limitations Neither party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations which the court finds well-reasoned. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R & R as the court's Opinion and Order, DENIES Plaintiffs motion to reverse decision of the Commissioner (Doc. 14), and GRANTS Defendant's motion for an order affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Doc. 19). SO ORDERED. 'h Dated at Burlington, in the District~ of October, 2015, Christina Reiss, Chief Judge United States District Court 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.