United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
LERONE D. ROZZELLE, Plaintiff,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,  Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
J. Conrad, Jr. United States District Judge
MATTER comes before the Court on Lerone D.
Rozzelle's (“Plaintiff's”) Motion for
Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 11), and Memorandum in Support,
(Doc. No. 12), Nancy A. Berryhill's
(“Defendant's or Commissioner's”) Motion
for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 13), and Memorandum in
Support, (Doc. No. 14).
seeks judicial review of Defendant's denial of his social
security claim. (Doc. No. 1). On October 7, 2013, Plaintiff
filed his application for supplemental security income
(“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405 et seq. (Doc.
Nos. 10 to 10-1: Administrative Record (“Tr.”) at
249-51). Plaintiff's application was denied initially and
upon consideration. (Tr. 22, 142-145, 173-176).
October 8, 2015, a hearing was held in front an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. 40-77). On
November 17, 2015, the ALJ issued a decision finding
Plaintiff not disabled. (Tr. 19-39). The Appeals Council
denied review of the ALJ's decision on January 12, 2017,
making the ALJ's opinion the final decision of Defendant.
(Tr. 1-6). Plaintiff now appeals the ALJ's decision,
requesting this Court to issue a remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
question before the ALJ was whether the claimant is disabled
under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act. (Tr.
22). To establish entitlement to benefits, Plaintiff has the
burden of proving that he was disabled within the meaning of
the Social Security Act. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S.
137, 146 n.5 (1987). The ALJ ultimately concluded that
Plaintiff was not under a disability at any point in the
relevant timeframe. (Tr. 33-34).
Social Security Administration has established a five-step
sequential evaluation process for determining if a person is
disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). The five steps are:
(1) whether claimant is engaged in substantial gainful
activity-if yes, not disabled;
(2) whether claimant has a severe medically determinable
physical or mental impairment, or combination of impairments
that meet the duration requirement in § 404.1509-if no,
(3) whether claimant has an impairment or combination of
impairments that meets or medically equals one of the
listings in appendix 1 and meets the duration requirement-if
(4) whether claimant has the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform his or her past relevant
work-if yes, not disabled; and
(5) whether considering claimant's RFC, age, education,
and work experience he or she can make an adjustment to other
work-if yes, not disabled.
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i-v). In this
case, the ALJ determined at the fifth step that Plaintiff was