Davis v. Colvin, No. 1:2013cv00768 - Document 26 (E.D. Va. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and Order. ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 19 is GRANTED; that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 12 is DENIED; Plaintiff's Motion for Remand 13 is DENIED. Accordingly, Defendant's decision to deny supplemental security income is AFFIRMED. Signed by District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on 8/18/2014. (rban, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION NICOLE LYNN DAVIS, ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, V. ) Case No. 1:13-cv-768 (GBL/IDD) ) CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Nicole Lynn Davis' objections to Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis' May 21, 2014 Report and Recommendation to affirm the Commissioner's decision denying social security disability benefits to Plaintiff. (Doc. 24.) The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation because the Administrative Law Judge's decision is supported by substantial evidence and applies the proper legal standard. Therefore, Defendant's Motion for Summar>' Judgment (Doc. 19) is GRANTED, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 12) is DENIED, and Plaintiffs Motion for Remand (Doc. 13) is DENIED. Accordingly, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration decision to deny Social Security supplemental income is AFFIRMED. 1. BACKGROUND On September 2, 2009, Nicole Lynn Davis ("Plaintiff") filed an application for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") with the Social Security Administration ("SSA") underTitle II of the Social Security Act. (Doc. 23, at 1.) In her application. Plaintiff alleged that, she became disabled and unable to work on April 3, 2009 because she has bipolar disorder, three hemiated discs in her back, fibromyalgia, and other mental impairments. (Administrative Record ("R"), at

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.