Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-00281-KDB-DCK
CHRISTOPHER ROSS
HUFFMAN,
Plaintiff,
v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
FRANK BISIGNANO,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Honorable Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler (“M&R”) entered February 17, 2026 (Doc. No. 11);
Plaintiffs’ Objections to the M&R (Doc. No. 12) and the parties’ pleadings and related filings.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may designate a magistrate judge to “submit to a judge of the court
proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition” of certain pretrial matters. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may object to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations, and the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). “[A] party wishing to avail itself of its right to de novo review must be sufficiently
specific to focus the district court’s attention on the factual and legal issues that are truly in
dispute.” Osmon v. United States, 66 F.4th 144, 146 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). However, the Court does not perform a de novo review where a party makes
Case 1:24-cv-00281-KDB-DCK Document 14 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th
Cir. 1982). After reviewing the record, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
II. DISCUSSION
The Court has conducted an independent review of the M&R, Plaintiff’s objections (which
largely repeat arguments already made to the Magistrate Judge), and a de novo review of the
applicable record. Upon that review, the Court concludes that the recommendation to affirm the
Commissioner’s finding that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act during the
relevant period is correct and in accordance with law. The Court agrees that the ALJ’s findings
were “based on a comprehensive and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and the ALJ
did not cherry-pick or otherwise mischaracterize the evidence.” See Fowls v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
No. 1:22-CV-00271-KDB-DCK, 2024 WL 3433667, at *2 (W.D.N.C. July 16, 2024).
Specifically on the two issues raised by the Plaintiff, the M&R first correctly concluded
that the ALJ did not err in evaluating Plaintiff’s underlying seizure condition. Plaintiff’s complaint
regarding Listing 12.07 is not well-taken because the ALJ examined Plaintiff’s seizure disorder’s
symptoms in evaluating other listings with equivalent criteria. Therefore, an evaluation under
Listing 12.07 would bear the same result. Second, the ALJ did not fail to properly evaluate
Plaintiff’s treating physicians’ opinions. While other evidence in the record may support Plaintiff’s
positions, the ALJ considered both the objective and subjective evidence in making his decision
and ultimately made an evaluation that did not fully endorse the treating physicians’
recommendation regarding Plaintiff’s need for impairment-related work absences. In its limited
Case 1:24-cv-00281-KDB-DCK Document 14 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
role, it would be inappropriate for this Court to reweigh the evidence and supplant the ALJ’s
considered judgment. That is, the ALJ’s view of the relevant medical opinions is supported by
substantial evidence.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above and more fully stated in the M&R, the findings
and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED and the Commissioner’s decision will be
AFFIRMED.
III. ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 11) are ADOPTED;
2. The Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED; and
3. The Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with this Order.
SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
Signed: March 5, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-00281-KDB-DCK Document 14 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 3