United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF
CECELIA WILKINSON'S OBJECTION , ADOPTING THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION , AND
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER
SULEYMAN OZERDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THE COURT is the Objection  filed by Plaintiff Cecelia
Wilkinson (“Plaintiff”) to the Report and
Recommendation  of United States Magistrate Judge Michael
T. Parker. After reviewing the record and relevant legal
authority, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Objection
 should be overruled, that the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation  should be adopted in its
entirety as the finding of the Court, and that the decision
of Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social
Security (“Defendant” or
“Commissioner”), denying disability benefits
should be affirmed.
was born in 1964, has a high school education, and has
relevant work experience as a slot machine technician, casino
security personnel, and restaurant cook. Pl.'s Br. 
at 2. She has a history of back pain and lumbar disc
displacement. Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges disability
due to a dehydrated spinal disc at ¶ 1, bulging discs at
¶ 3 and L5, and arthritis at ¶ 5-S1. Id.
April 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for Social
Security disability insurance benefits, claiming that her
disability began on September 12, 2012. Report and
Recommendation  at 1. The Social Security Administration
initially denied Plaintiff's application on June 10,
2013, and thereafter upheld the decision upon a request for
reconsideration on June 17, 2013. R.  at 76-77. Plaintiff
requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) to review the decision, and on July 10,
2014, Plaintiff and a vocational expert testified at a video
hearing before the ALJ. Id. at 38-68. The ALJ issued
a decision on September 26, 2014, concluding from the entire
record that Plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to
perform light work and is not disabled. Id. at
sought review of the ALJ's decision before the Appeals
Council, which denied the request for review on November 4,
2015. Id. at 4-7. Plaintiff filed this civil action
on December 18, 2015, seeking a reversal of the decision to
deny disability benefits, an order granting disability
benefits commencing on September 12, 2012, and an award of
attorneys' fees. Compl.  at 3.
briefing by the parties, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation  that the decision of the Commissioner
should be affirmed. Plaintiff filed an Objection , and
Defendant filed a Response  urging the Court to adopt the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation  and
affirm the denial of disability benefits.
Standard of Review
Plaintiff has filed an Objection  to the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation , this Court is
required to “make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); see also Longmire v. Gust, 921
F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991) (a party filing a written
objection is “entitled to a de novo review by an
Article III Judge as to those issues to which an objection is
made”). In reviewing the decision, the Court
“considers only whether the Commissioner applied the
proper legal standards and whether substantial evidence in
the record supports [the] decision.” Jones v.
Astrue, 691 F.3d 730, 733 (5th Cir. 2012).
evidence is that which is relevant and sufficient for a
reasonable mind to accept as adequate to support a
conclusion; it must be more than a scintilla, but it need not
be a preponderance.” Anthony v. Sullivan, 954
F.2d 289, 295 (5th Cir. 1992). “A finding of no
substantial evidence is appropriate only if no credible
evidentiary choices or medical findings support the
decision.” Harris v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 413, 417
(5th Cir. 2000). Under this standard, a court cannot
“re-weigh the evidence or substitute [its] judgment for
that of the Commissioner.” Id.
extent that a party does not object to portions of a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Court
need not conduct a de novo review of the recommendation.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In such cases, the
Court need only review the report and recommendation and
determine whether it is either clearly erroneous or contrary
to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221
(5th Cir. 1989).
Standard for Entitlement to ...