United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Patrick Auld, United States Magistrate Judge
Peter Francis Jama, brought this action pursuant to the
Social Security Act (the “Act”) to obtain
judicial review of a final decision of Defendant, the Acting
Commissioner of Social Security, denying Plaintiff's
claims for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”)
and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). (Docket
Entry 2.) Defendant has filed the certified administrative
record (Docket Entry 8 (cited herein as “Tr. ___
”)), and both parties have moved for judgment (Docket
Entries 11, 14; see also Docket Entry 12
(Plaintiff's Memorandum); Docket Entry 15
(Defendant's Memorandum)). For the reasons that follow,
the Court should enter judgment for Defendant.
applied for DIB and SSI, alleging an onset date of March 8,
2008. (Tr. 241-57.) Upon denial of those applications
initially (Tr. 80-105, 140-49) and on reconsideration (Tr.
106-39, 154-62), Plaintiff requested a hearing de novo before
an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) (Tr. 163-64).
Plaintiff, his attorney, and a vocational expert
(“VE”) attended the hearing. (Tr. 29-79.) The ALJ
subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled
under the Act. (Tr. 11-23.) The Appeals Council thereafter
denied Plaintiff's request for review (Tr. 1-7, 8,
310-15), thereby making the ALJ's ruling the
Commissioner's final decision for purposes of judicial
rendering that disability determination, the ALJ made the
following findings later adopted by the Commissioner:
1. [Plaintiff] meets the insured status requirements of the
 Act through December 31, 2014.
2. [Plaintiff] has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since March 8, 2008, the alleged onset date.
. . .
3. [Plaintiff] has the following severe impairments: diabetes
mellitus, ocular hypertension (pre-glaucoma); depressive
disorder; osteoarthritis; and degenerative disc disease.
. . .
4. [Plaintiff] does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of
one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P,
. . .
5. . . . [Plaintiff] has the residual functional capacity to
perform light work . . . except [Plaintiff] may need to shift
positions every 40 minutes. He can occasionally bend, stoop,
kneel, crouch and crawl. He should avoid concentrated
exposure to humidity, heat and cold. [Plaintiff] is able to
understand and carry out simple, routine, repetitive tasks.
. . .
6. [Plaintiff] is capable of performing past relevant work as
a door-to-door sales representative. This work does not
require the performance of work-related activities precluded
by [Plaintiff's] residual functional capacity.
. . .
In the alternative, considering [Plaintiff's] age,
education, work experience, and residual functional capacity,
there are other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the
national economy that [Plaintiff] can also perform.
7. [Plaintiff] has not been under a disability, as defined in
the  Act, from March 8, 2008, through the date of this
(Tr. 16-23 (bold font and internal parenthetical citations
law “authorizes judicial review of the Social Security
Commissioner's denial of social security benefits.”
Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 561 (4th Cir.
2006). However, “the scope of [the Court's] review
of [such a] decision . . . is extremely limited.”
Frady v. Harris, 646 F.2d 143, 144 (4th Cir. 1981).
Plaintiff has not established entitlement to relief under the
extremely limited review standard.