Creel v. Social Security Administration

E.D. Arkansas

Creel v. Social Security Administration

District Court, E.D. Arkansas·Decided February 6, 2023·No. 4:21-cv-00627·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

ASHLEY CREEL PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:21-cv-00627-KGB-JTK

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

ORDER

Before the Court is the Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. No. 8). Plaintiff Ashley Creel filed objections to the Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9). After careful consideration of the Recommendation and Ms. Creel’s objections, as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 8). The Court writes separately to address some of Ms. Creel’s objections (Dkt. No. 9). Ms. Creel’s objections to the Recommendation are the same as the arguments she made to support this appeal of the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) determinations (Dkt. Nos. 6; 9). Ms. Creel maintains that the ALJ lacked substantial evidence for finding unpersuasive the opinions of Advanced Practicing Nurse Olivia Cox and Psychiatrist Herman Clements (Dkt. Nos. 6, at 14, 18; 9, at 2, 6). The Court acknowledges Ms. Creel’s objections. However, under binding circuit precedent, the Court’s function on review is “narrow,” and the objections offered, coupled with a de novo review of the record, do not rise to the level necessary to reverse the determination of the ALJ. See generally Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001). The Court, having considered Ms. Creel’s objections and having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Kearney, “substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision that [Ms.] Creel was not disabled” (Dkt. No. 8, at 10). For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Recommendation as its findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 8). The Court affirms the Commissioner’s decision, denies Ms. Creel request for relief, and dismisses with prejudice this case. It is so ordered this the 6th day of February, 2023.

Ke shiu A: Pralir— Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

ASHLEY CREEL PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:21-cv-00627-KGB-JTK

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

ORDER

Before the Court is the Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. No. 8). Plaintiff Ashley Creel filed objections to the Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9). After careful consideration of the Recommendation and Ms. Creel’s objections, as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 8). The Court writes separately to address some of Ms. Creel’s objections (Dkt. No. 9). Ms. Creel’s objections to the Recommendation are the same as the arguments she made to support this appeal of the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) determinations (Dkt. Nos. 6; 9). Ms. Creel maintains that the ALJ lacked substantial evidence for finding unpersuasive the opinions of Advanced Practicing Nurse Olivia Cox and Psychiatrist Herman Clements (Dkt. Nos. 6, at 14, 18; 9, at 2, 6). The Court acknowledges Ms. Creel’s objections. However, under binding circuit precedent, the Court’s function on review is “narrow,” and the objections offered, coupled with a de novo review of the record, do not rise to the level necessary to reverse the determination of the ALJ. See generally Pearsall v. Massanari, 274 F.3d 1211, 1217 (8th Cir. 2001). The Court, having considered Ms. Creel’s objections and having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Kearney, “substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision that [Ms.] Creel was not disabled” (Dkt. No. 8, at 10). For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Recommendation as its findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 8). The Court affirms the Commissioner’s decision, denies Ms. Creel request for relief, and dismisses with prejudice this case. It is so ordered this the 6th day of February, 2023.

Ke shiu A: Pralir— Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge

Creel v. Social Security Administration, (E.D. Ark. 2023).

Pincite

Creel v. Social Security Administration (Creel v. Social Security Administration) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related