United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
PATRICK AULD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
David Leon Scott, 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
claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”).
(Docket Entry 1.) Defendant has filed the certified
administrative record (Docket Entry 9 (cited herein as
“Tr. ”)) and both parties have moved for judgment
(Docket Entries 11, 13); see also Docket Entry 12
(Plaintiff's Brief), Docket Entry 14 (Defendant's
Memorandum)). For the reasons that follow, the Court should
enter judgment for Defendant.
applied for DIB, alleging a disability onset date of June 4,
2012. (Tr. 146-48.) Upon denial of that application initially
(Tr. 51-60, 78-82) and on reconsideration (Tr. 61-73, 84-87),
Plaintiff requested a hearing de novo before an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) (Tr. 88-89).
Plaintiff, his attorney, and a vocational expert
(“VE”) attended the hearing. (Tr. 24-50.) The ALJ
subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled
under the Act. (Tr. 10-20.) The Appeals Council denied
Plaintiff's request for review (Tr. 1-5, 8-9, 223-30),
making the ALJ's ruling the Commissioner's final
decision for purposes of judicial review.
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, 2016.
2. [Plaintiff] has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity since June 4, 2012, the alleged onset date.
3. [Plaintiff] has the following severe impairments: annular
tear and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine at
¶ 4-5 and facet arthropathy of the lumbar spine.
4. [Plaintiff] does not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of an
impairment listed in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.
5. [Plaintiff] has the residual functional capacity to
perform sedentary work . . . except would need the option to
stand for a couple of minutes a couple of times per hour.
[Plaintiff] can frequently climb ramps and stairs, balance,
and stoop, and can occasionally kneel, crouch and crawl.
[Plaintiff] cannot climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds.
6. [Plaintiff] is capable of performing past relevant work as
a production coordinator. 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,
[Plaintiff] has also acquired work skills from past relevant
work that are transferable to other occupations with jobs
existing in significant numbers in the national economy.
7. [Plaintiff] has not been under a disability, as defined in
the  Act, from June 4, 2012, through the date of this
(Tr. 15-20 (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.