FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION

DONALD GENE JOHNSON PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-00024-JMV

ANDREW SAUL COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY DEFENDANT

FINAL JUDGMENT

This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to

(g) for judicial review of an unfavorable final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration regarding his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions of

(c), with any appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Court, having reviewed the record, the administrative transcript, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law and having heard oral argument, finds as follows, to wit: For the reasons stated in Defendant’s brief and announced by the Court on the record at the conclusion of oral argument, the Court finds there is no reversible error, and the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.1 Therefore, the

1 Judicial review under

(g) is limited to two inquiries: (1) whether substantial evidence in the record supports the Commissioner’s decision and (2) whether the decision comports with proper legal standards. See Villa v. Sullivan,

(5th Cir. 1990). “Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Greenspan v. Shalala,

(5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Richardson v. Perales,

,

,

(1971)). “It is more than a mere scintilla, and less than a preponderance.” Spellman v. Shalala,

(5th Cir. 1993) (citing Moore v. Sullivan,

(5th Cir. 1990)). “A decision is supported by substantial evidence if ‘credible evidentiary choices or medical findings support the decision.’” Salmond v. Berryhill,

(5th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). The court must be careful not to “reweigh the evidence or substitute . . . [its] judgment” for that of the ALJ, see Hollis v. Bowen,

(5th Cir. 1988), even if it finds that the evidence preponderates against the Commissioner's decision. Bowling v. Shalala,

(5th Cir. 1994); Harrell v. Bowen,

(5th Cir. 1988). As pointed out during the hearing, the RFC determination in this case is supported by substantial evidence, and there was no prejudicial legal error. The arguments presented by Plaintiff essentially call upon the Court to impermissibly reweigh the evidence. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this, the 18th day of November, 2020.

/s/ Jane M. Virden U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE