UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 20, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk VICTORIA DIVISION BEN CHAPA, § § Petitioner, § § v. § Civil Action No. 6:21-CV-00015 § SOCIAL SECURITY § ADMINISTRATION, § § Respondent. § ORDER ACCEPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Pending before the Court is the March 14, 2022 Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) signed by Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby. (Dkt. No. 30). In the M&R, Magistrate Judge Libby reviewed the ALJ’s decision that Petitioner Ben Chapa was not disabled and recommends that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, after reviewing the record, Magistrate Judge Libby rejected Chapa’s three arguments: (1) the ALJ failed to properly consider all of his impairments at Step 2 of the process for evaluating a disability claim, (Id. at 20–24); (2) the ALJ’s determination as to Chapa’s residual functional capacity was not based on substantial evidence, (Id. at 24–29); and (3) the ALJ erred by applying the Medical Vocational Guidelines (usually referred to as the Grid Rules) at Step 5 of the process for evaluating a disability claim because Chapa has a non-exertional limitation, (Id. at 29–32). Magistrate Judge Libby recommends that Chapa’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied and the Respondent Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment! be granted. The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R. See

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither Party objected. As a result, review is straightforward: plain error. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc.,

(5th Cir. 2005). No plain error appears. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the M&R as the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court DENIES Ben Chapa’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 28). The Court GRANTS the Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 29). It is SO ORDERED. Signed on April 20, 2022. R J

DREW B. TIPTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 Magistrate Judge Libby construed the Commissioner’s Response in Opposition to Chapa’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 29), as a cross motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 30 at 1).