Woodcock v. Astrue, No. 2:2012cv00474 - Document 16 (E.D. Va. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER that the Court ADOPTS the findings and recommendations set forth in JudgeMiller's Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8) and Motion to Remand (ECF No.9) are DENIED, the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED, and the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED.. Signed by District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen on 8/30/13. (afar)

Download PDF
Woodcock v. Astrue Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT C FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF Norfolk Division I CLERK BETTY WOODCOCK, Plaintiff, v- Civil Action No. 2:12cv474 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ORDER Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §405(g), seeking judicial review ofthe final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiffs applications for disability insurance benefits pursuant to Title II ofthe Social Security Act. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to the provisions of28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Rule 72(b) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, as well as Rule 72 of the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, for consideration of a Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Remand filed by Plaintiff and a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Commissioner of Social Security. The Report and Recommendation (R&R) ofMagistrate Judge Tommy E. Miller was filed on June 20, 2013, recommending that (1) Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Remand be dismissed and denied; (2) the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted; and (3) the final decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. Dockets.Justia.com By copy of the Report, each party was advised of the right to file written objections to the findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. The Court received Plaintiffs objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R, and has considered the objections carefully. Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge erred when he recommended that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to deny benefits should be affirmed. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to consider all of the opinions of her treating physician, failed to adequately weigh her credibility, and improperly relied on vocational expert testimony regarding an inapposite hypothetical. After reviewing the record de novo, the record shows that the ALJ properly considered the statements of Plaintiffs treating physician, and that his evaluation of Plaintiffs condition and conclusion that plaintiff was not credible was supported by substantial evidence and a proper application of the law. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the findings and recommendations set forth in Judge Miller's Report and Recommendation (ECF 14). 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 8) and Motion to Remand (ECF No. 9) are DENIED, the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED, and the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The Clerk is REQUESTED to forward a copyof this Order to all parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. ArendavT>W-i%rrfA.llen United States District Judge August^ ,2013 Norfolk, Virginia 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.