Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
CODY R. ROBERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:24-cv-325-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Cody R. Roberson filed this appeal of a final decision of the Social
Security Administration Commissioner. The case was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On February 23,
2026, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the
Court affirm the Commissioner’s final decision and dismiss this Social Security
appeal with prejudice. Docket No. 15. Plaintiff filed written objections. Docket No.
18.
Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court
reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire
record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other
grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from
ten to fourteen days).
Case 6:24-cv-00325-JDK-KNM Document 19 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiff’s objections concern the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”)
assessment. See Docket No. 18. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the Report fails to
address whether the ALJ sufficiently explained how the evidence supports the
specific RFC limitations assessed, improperly applies a “middle ground” rationale,
and does not adequately consider the combined effects of his impairments. Id. The
Court’s judicial review of the ALJ’s decision “is limited to determining whether that
decision is supported by substantial evidence and whether the proper legal standards
are applied.” Harris v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Ripley v.
Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995)). On review, the Court “does not reweigh the
evidence in the record, try the issues de novo, or substitute its judgment for the
Commissioner’s, even if the evidence weighs against the Commissioner’s decision.”
Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Brown v. Apfel, 192 F.3d
492, 496 (5th Cir. 1999)).
The RFC assessment is a finding concerning the most that a claimant can do
in a work setting despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). The assessment
is the sole responsibility of the ALJ. Taylor v. Astrue, 706 F.3d 600, 602–03 (5th Cir.
2012). It is not a medical opinion, and it is drawn from the ALJ’s consideration of the
medical evidence and the medical opinions, as well as the claimant’s statements and
testimony, activities of daily living, frequency and intensity of pain, and medication
effects. Joseph-Jack v. Barnhart, 80 Fed. Appx. 317, 318 (5th Cir. 2003); 20 C.F.R. §
404.1529.
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred because he rejected certain medical
Case 6:24-cv-00325-JDK-KNM Document 19 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
opinions describing Plaintiff’s functional limitations, “leaving the RFC to be derived
from the ALJ’s interpretation of the remaining medical evidence.” Docket No. 18 at
4. But there is no requirement for the ALJ to adopt a specific physician’s assessment.
Miller v. Kijakazi, 2023 WL 234773, at 4 (5th Cir. 2023); see also Myers v. Saul, 2021
WL 4025993, at 8 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2021). As stated above, the ALJ considers a
number of factors and exercises his responsibility to interpret the medical evidence.
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c) (enumerating the factors). The objections do not show
fault in the ALJ’s analysis of the medical opinions. The ALJ provided detailed
explanations for the reasoning behind his consideration of the medical opinions.
Docket No. 7-3 at 28–31. Similarly, the ALJ provided a detailed explanation for his
assessment of Plaintiff’s mental impairments, addressing the objective medical
evidence together with Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms. Docket No. 7-3 at 29–30.
Additionally, Plaintiff submits that the ALJ failed to explain the evidence
showing that he can work on a regular and continuing basis. Docket No. 18 at 3. The
ALJ’s RFC determination is an assessment of his capacity to perform work on a
regular and continuing basis. Dunbar v. Barnhart, 330 F.3d 670, 672 (5th Cir. 2003)
(per curiam). A specific finding that the claimant can perform work on a regular basis
is not required absent special circumstances. See id. (citing Frank v. Barnhart, 326
F.3d 618, 619 (5th Cir. 2003) (on petition for rehearing)).
Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that the Report relies on a “middle ground” rationale
to find that the ALJ’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence. Docket No. 18 at
6. Plaintiff refers to a factual statement in the Report that the “ALJ’s finding includes
Case 6:24-cv-00325-JDK-KNM Document 19 Filed 03/16/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
limitations that are more severe than those opined by the State agency consultants,
but less severe than the limitations assessed by Dr. Burnett and Dr. Rivers.” Docket
No. 15 at 19. There is no error in simply finding that the ALJ’s determination is less
limiting than some medical opinions and more limiting than others. See Miller v.
Kijakazi, 2023 WL 234773, at 4 (5th Cir. 2023) (stating that an ALJ considers a list
of factors articulated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c to decide “what weight, if any, to give
to a medical opinion.”). Here, the ALJ’s RFC finding is supported by substantial
evidence and the ALJ applied the correct legal standards.
Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Report of the
Magistrate Judge is correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Accordingly,
the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 15) as
the opinion of the Court. The Court AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s final decision
and DISMISSES this case with prejudice.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16th	March, 2026.
Case 6:24-cv-00325-JDK-KNM Document 19 Filed 03/16/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>