Twine v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. Virginia

Twine v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJune 13, 2022

Docket2:21-cv-00026

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Twine v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Va. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA : Norfolk Division

Plaintiff, Ve Case No. 2:21-cv-026 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ORDER Before the Court is Tabethia T.’s (‘Plaintiff’) Objection to United States Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller’s April 7, 2022 Report and Recommendation, which was filed by Plaintiff on April 21, 2022. Pl.’s Obj. to Apr. 7, 2022 Order, ECF No. 26. Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Kilolo Kijakazi (“Defendant”), responded to Plaintiff's Objection on April 28, 2022. Def.’s Resp. Pl.’s Obj., ECF No. 27. A district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to within 14 days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff argues that Judge Miller errored by finding that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) determination was supported by substantial evidence and based upon the correct legal standard. Defendant contends that Judge Miller was correct in finding that the ALJ interpreted Lewis vy. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 869 (4th Cir. 2017) correctly and that the ALJ’s determination was supported by substantial evidence. Upon de novo review of all evidence relevant to Plaintiff's Objection, the Court finds no error with Judge Miller’s proposed disposition. The Court hereby ADOPTS AND AFFIRMS Judge Miller’s Report and Recommendation regarding Plaintiffs qualification for disability

insurance benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment “pee The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties and all counsel of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED. dt Raymond A. Jackson Norfolk, Virginia United States District Judge June /3 , 2022

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

FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA : Norfolk Division

Plaintiff, Ve Case No. 2:21-cv-026 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ORDER Before the Court is Tabethia T.’s (‘Plaintiff’) Objection to United States Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller’s April 7, 2022 Report and Recommendation, which was filed by Plaintiff on April 21, 2022. Pl.’s Obj. to Apr. 7, 2022 Order, ECF No. 26. Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Kilolo Kijakazi (“Defendant”), responded to Plaintiff's Objection on April 28, 2022. Def.’s Resp. Pl.’s Obj., ECF No. 27. A district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to within 14 days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff argues that Judge Miller errored by finding that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) determination was supported by substantial evidence and based upon the correct legal standard. Defendant contends that Judge Miller was correct in finding that the ALJ interpreted Lewis vy. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 869 (4th Cir. 2017) correctly and that the ALJ’s determination was supported by substantial evidence. Upon de novo review of all evidence relevant to Plaintiff's Objection, the Court finds no error with Judge Miller’s proposed disposition. The Court hereby ADOPTS AND AFFIRMS Judge Miller’s Report and Recommendation regarding Plaintiffs qualification for disability

insurance benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. The Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment “pee The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the parties and all counsel of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED. dt Raymond A. Jackson Norfolk, Virginia United States District Judge June /3 , 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Twine v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twine-v-commissioner-of-social-security-vaed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack