Opinions of the United
2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-17-2002
Jimenez v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 01-4282
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002
Recommended Citation
"Jimenez v. Comm Social Security" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 575.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/575
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
______________
NO. 01-4282
______________
MARIA JIMENEZ,
Appellant,
v.
JOANNE B. BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-04790
District Judge: Hon. J. Curtis Joyner
______________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 18, 2002
Before: McKEE, FUENTES, and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: September 17, 2002)
______________
OPINION OF THE COURT
______________
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
Maria Jimenez appeals the October 2, 2001 order of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting summary judgment under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56 to the Commissioner of Social Security in Jimenez’s lawsuit for benefits under
Title II of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. 401-433. The District Court had
jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
1291. Because we write only for the parties and the District Court, who are familiar with
the circumstances of this litigation, we need not recite the factual or procedural history.
Our review is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. 2305; see also Monsour Medical Ctr. v.
Heckler, 803 1185, 1190 (3d Cir. 1986). We have reviewed the thoughtful Report and
Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge which the District Court approved and
adopted, as well as the record submitted in this matter. We agree with the conclusions of
the Magistrate Judge and the District Court that substantial evidence on the record
supports the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that Jimenez is not disabled within
the meaning of the Act. In particular, we believe that the ALJ’s conclusions that
Appellant possesses the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work, and
therefore has the ability to perform work as a cashier, assembler, or sorter, and the ALJ’s
discrediting of the Appellant’s testimony and the testimony of Appellant’s treating
physician are all supported by substantial evidence on the record.
Moreover, because Appellant raised the argument that she is entitled to a closed
period of disability for the first time in her objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendations, and not in her opening brief, we deem this argument waived. See
Laborers’ Int’l Union of N.A. v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir. 1994).
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order granting summary judgment to
the Commissioner substantially for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation.
_______________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
By the Court:
/s/ Theodore A. McKee
Circuit Judge