Pierce v. Commissioner of Social Security

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MOREHEI K. PIERCE, Plaintiff, 8:25CV586 v. ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. On November 1, 2022, plaintiff Morehei K. Pierce (“Pierce”) protectively applied for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. After a telephonic hearing, the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denied his request for benefits, concluding he was not disabled under the Act (Filing No. 9-2). Pierce now seeks relief from that adverse decision (Filing No. 1). On February 27, 2026, he filed a Motion for an Order Reversing or Remanding the Commissioner’s Decision (Filing No. 22). The Commissioner, in turn, moved for an order affirming his decision (Filing No. 26). The Court referred both motions to the magistrate judge1 for review and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (authorizing such referrals); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). On July 17, 2026, the magistrate judge issued a Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 34) recommending the Court deny Pierce’s motion, grant the Commissioner’s motion, affirm the decision, and dismiss this case with prejudice. 1The Honorable Ryan C. Carson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. As authorized by § 636(b), Pierce timely objected (Filing No. 35) to that Findings and Recommendation. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Pierce states that he “primarily objects to the magistrate judge’s findings on grounds that the” Commissioner’s final decision “failed to adequately evaluate [his] obesity in combination with his other impairments” and “relied extensively on the opinions of doctors that did not examine” him. In his view, the totality of his “physical and mental impairments, combined with his unique vocational circumstances,” prove he is disabled. Section 636(b)(1) requires the Court to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” “If supported by substantial evidence,” the Commissioner’s factual findings are conclusive. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). And—as the magistrate judge noted—the Court “will only disturb the [Commissioner’s final] decision if it falls ‘outside the available zone of choice.’” Cropper v. Dudek, 136 F.4th 809, 813 (8th Cir. 2025) (quoting Austin v. Kijakazi, 52 F.4th 723, 728 (8th Cir. 2022)). Having carefully completed the requisite review, the Court finds no error in the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation. The Court agrees that the Commissioner’s decision is both legally sound and “supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.” Bonham v. Bisignano, 177 F.4th 934, 940 (8th Cir. 2026) (quoting Kraus v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1019, 1024 (8th Cir. 2021)). Pierce clearly does not agree with the Commissioner’s final decision, but it is well within “the available zone of choice.” Cropper, 136 F.4th at 813 (quoting Austin, 52 F.4th at 728). For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff Morehei K. Pierce’s objections (Filing No. 35) to the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 34) are overruled. The magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation is accepted. 2. Pierce’s motion for an Order Reversing or Remanding the Commissioner’s Decision (Filing No. 22) is denied. 3. The Commissioner’s Motion to Affirm the Commissioner’s Decision (Filing No. 26) is granted, and his final decision to deny benefits 1s affirmed. 4. This case is dismissed with prejudice. 5. A separate judgment will issue. Dated this 17th day of August 2026. BY THE COURT: Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. United States District Judge