United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Patrick Auld United States Magistrate Judge.
Lisa Finnegan, 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 10 (cited herein as “Tr.
”)), and both parties have moved for judgment (Docket
Entries 15, 17; see also Docket Entry 16
(Plaintiff's Memorandum); Docket Entry 18
(Defendant's Memorandum); Docket Entry 19
(Plaintiff's Reply)). For the reasons that follow, the
Court should enter judgment for Defendant.
applied for DIB and SSI, alleging an onset date of September
1, 2008. (Tr. 239-46.) Upon denial of those applications
initially (Tr. 76-97, 136-46) and on reconsideration (Tr.
98-125, 153-70), Plaintiff requested a hearing de novo before
an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) (Tr. 171-76).
Plaintiff, her attorney, and a vocational expert
(“VE”) attended the hearing. (Tr. 33-61.) The ALJ
subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled
under the Act. (Tr. 15-26.) The Appeals Council thereafter
denied Plaintiff's request for review (Tr. 4-9, 14,
352-57), 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] met the insured status requirements of the 
Act through December 31, 2012.
2. [Plaintiff] has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since September 1, 2008, the alleged onset date.
. . .
3. [Plaintiff] has the following severe impairments: asthma
. . .
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] can occasionally
climb and balance. She can tolerate occasional exposure to
extreme cold, extreme heat, wetness, humidity, fumes, odors,
dusts, gases, poor ventilation, and hazards. [Plaintiff]
requires portable oxygen during work hours.
. . .
6. [Plaintiff] is capable of performing past relevant work as
a sales clerk, circulation clerk, and general clerk. This
work does not require the performance of work-related
activities precluded by [Plaintiff's] residual functional
. . .
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] also can perform.
7. [Plaintiff] has not been under a disability, as defined in
the  Act, from September 1, 2008, through the date of this
(Tr. 20-26 (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.