Jimmy Porter v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration.

N.D. Texas

Jimmy Porter v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration.

DecidedDecember 22, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00181

StatusUnknown

This text of Jimmy Porter v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration. (Jimmy Porter v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jimmy Porter v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration., (N.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JIMMY PORTER, § Plaintiff, § § v. § No. 3:25-CV-181-X § COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY § ADMINISTRATION., § Defendant. § ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Court has reviewed all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and 636(c). The Court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is “limited to determining whether that decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards are applied.”1 Moreover, a decision is not reversed “even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported the opposite conclusion, so long as substantial evidence supports the conclusion that was reached by the ALJ.”2 The Court concludes that there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion for the reasons stated by the United States Magistrate Judge.

1 Harris v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2000). 2 Aurelio C. v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 2024 WL 3862801, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2024), adopted by Castillo v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 2024 WL 3862449, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2024) Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings and Conclusions of the United States Magistrate Judge. SO ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 2025.

BRANTLEY i 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 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JIMMY PORTER, § Plaintiff, § § v. § No. 3:25-CV-181-X § COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY § ADMINISTRATION., § Defendant. § ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Court has reviewed all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and 636(c). The Court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision is “limited to determining whether that decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards are applied.”1 Moreover, a decision is not reversed “even if there is substantial evidence in the record that would have supported the opposite conclusion, so long as substantial evidence supports the conclusion that was reached by the ALJ.”2 The Court concludes that there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion for the reasons stated by the United States Magistrate Judge.

1 Harris v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2000). 2 Aurelio C. v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 2024 WL 3862801, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2024), adopted by Castillo v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 2024 WL 3862449, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2024) Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings and Conclusions of the United States Magistrate Judge. SO ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 2025.

BRANTLEY i UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jimmy Porter v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimmy-porter-v-commissioner-social-security-administration-txnd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack