Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00157/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00157-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALISHIA KAY TURNER )

)

 Plaintiff, ) 

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-157-N

 )

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, )

Social Security Commissioner )

 )

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) Plaintiff, Alishia Kay Turner (“Tuner” or 

“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of an adverse social security ruling denying claims for 

disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) (Docs. 1, 18). With 

the consent of the parties, the Court has designated the undersigned Magistrate Judge to 

conduct all proceedings and order the entry of judgment in this civil action, in accordance

with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and S.D. Ala. GenLR 73. (See

Docs. 21, 22). Oral argument was heard on December 1, 2016. After considering the 

administrative record and the memoranda of the parties, it is ORDERED that the

decision of the Commissioner be AFFIRMED and that this action be DISMISSED.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff protectively applied for disability insurance benefits and SSI on July 

26, 2013, asserting a disability onset date of March 27, 2013. (Tr. 229-234). At the 

time of the administrative hearing, Plaintiff was forty-four years old, had completed

the twelfth grade and had previous work experience as a quality care technician, 

Case 1:16-cv-00157-N Document 24 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 12
2

office manager, telephone salesperson, and project manager. (Doc. 18; Fact Sheet). 

Plaintiff alleges disability due to degenerative disc disease of the lumbar and 

cervical spine, arthritis of the knees and hips, depressive disorder, and anxiety 

disorder with posttraumatic stress disorder. (Id). An Administrative Law Judge 

(“ALJ”) denied benefits after determining that Tuner did not meet disability listing 

requirements; the ALJ further found that Plaintiff was capable of performing light 

work with some restrictions. (Tr. 26). Plaintiff requested review of the hearing 

decision but the request was denied by the Appeals Council. (Tr. 1-7).

Plaintiff claims that the ALJ (1) committed reversible error in violation of 

Social Security Regulations 20 CFR 416.927(d) and Social Security Ruling 96-2 by 

failing to assign controlling weight to the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physician, 

Dr. Daniel A. Polansky, M.D., and (2) committed reversible error in violation of

Social Security Ruling 96-6p in assigning great weight and relying upon the opinion 

of consultative orthopedist, Dr. Thomas R. Dempsey, M.D. (Doc. 18 at 1-2). 

Defendant has responded to—and denies—these claims. (Doc. 19). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“In Social Security appeals, [the Court] must determine whether the 

Commissioner’s decision is ‘ “supported by substantial evidence and based on proper 

legal standards. Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and is such relevant 

evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” ’ 

” Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting 

Crawford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) 

Case 1:16-cv-00157-N Document 24 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 12
3

(internal citation omitted) (quoting Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1439 (11th 

Cir. 1997))). However, the Court “ ‘may not decide the facts anew, reweigh the 

evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the [Commissioner].’ ” Winschel, 

631 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 n.8 (11th Cir. 

2004) (alteration in original) (quoting Bloodsworth v. Heckler, 703 F.2d 1233, 1239 

(11th Cir. 1983))). “ ‘Even if the evidence preponderates against the 

[Commissioner]’s factual findings, we must affirm if the decision reached is 

supported by substantial evidence.’ ” Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1260 (quoting Martin v. 

Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990)).

 “Yet, within this narrowly circumscribed role, [courts] do not act as 

automatons. [The court] must scrutinize the record as a whole to determine if the 

decision reached is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence[.]” 

Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1239 (citations and quotation omitted). See also Owens v. 

Heckler, 748 F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (“We are neither to 

conduct a de novo proceeding, nor to rubber stamp the administrative decisions that 

come before us. Rather, our function is to ensure that the decision was based on a 

reasonable and consistently applied standard, and was carefully considered in light 

of all the relevant facts.”). “In determining whether substantial evidence exists, [a 

court] must...tak[e] into account evidence favorable as well as unfavorable to the 

[Commissioner’s] decision.” Chester v. Bowen, 792 F.2d 129, 131 (11th Cir. 1986).

Although the “claimant bears the burden of demonstrating the inability to 

return to [his or] her past relevant work, the Commissioner of Social Security has 

Case 1:16-cv-00157-N Document 24 Filed 12/08/16 Page 3 of 12
4

an obligation to develop a full and fair record.” Shnorr v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 578, 581 

(11th Cir. 1987). See also Ellison v. Barnhart, 355 F.3d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003) 

(per curiam) (“It is well-established that the ALJ has a basic duty to develop a full 

and fair record. Nevertheless, the claimant bears the burden of proving that he is 

disabled, and, consequently, he is responsible for producing evidence in support of 

his claim.” (citations omitted)). “This is an onerous task, as the ALJ must 

scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all relevant 

facts. In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ must consider the 

evidence as a whole.” Henry v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 802 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 

2015) (per curiam) (citation and quotation omitted).

Where, as here, the ALJ denied benefits and the Appeals Council denied 

review of that decision, the Court “review[s] the ALJ’s decision as the 

Commissioner’s final decision.” Doughty, 245 F.3d at 1278. “[W]hen the [Appeals 

Council] has denied review, [the Court] will look only to the evidence actually 

presented to the ALJ in determining whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by 

substantial evidence.” Falge v. Apfel, 150 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir. 1998). 

DISCUSSION

Turner takes issue with the fact that the ALJ did not give controlling weight 

to the opinion of Dr. Polansky, Turner’s treating physician. (Doc. 18 at 2-6). 

Plaintiff additionally claims that the ALJ assigned improper weight to the opinion 

of Dr. Dempsey, a consulting orthopedist. (Id. at 6-8). This Court will first address 

whether the ALJ erred in not assigning Dr. Polansky’s opinion controlling weight. 

Case 1:16-cv-00157-N Document 24 Filed 12/08/16 Page 4 of 12
5

At step four of the sequential evaluation process the ALJ found that Turner

had the residual functional capacity to perform light work, except the claimant 

would be capable of only simple, routine, repetitive tasks involving only simple work 

related decisions with few workplace changes and that claimant could be capable of 

occasional interactions with the public, coworkers and supervisors. (Tr. 26). In 

reaching this conclusion, the ALJ stated that the:

[R]esidual functional capacity assessment is supported by the claimant’s mild 

diagnoses of degenerative disc disease and arthritic findings in her hips and 

knees. The claimant would be capable of light exertion work based on her 

September 2014 consultative examination with Dr. Dempsey (Exhibit 12F). 

Additionally, the claimant should be limited to simple tasks with only 

occasional interaction with others to accommodate her anxiety disorder and 

her use of narcotic medications. 

(Tr. 32). As a result, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff could perform light work and that 

she was not disabled. (Tr. 35). In reaching this conclusion the ALJ summarized Plaintiff’s 

medical records relating to her knees, hips, and back, as follows:

In terms of the claimant’s alleged bilateral knee pain, an October 2009 

physical evaluation showed normal knee stability (Exhibit1F/58). In 

December 2011, Daniel A. Polansky, M.D., the claimant’s treating physician, 

performed a physical examination and found the claimant to have arthritic 

disease in the knees (Exhibit 11F/15). In August 2012, Dr. Polansky 

observed arthritic disease in the knees, and noted that the claimant had 

neuropathy of the lower extremities (Exhibit 11F/6). In July 2013, Dr. 

Polansky noted that the claimant had muscle tone and arthritic joints in the 

knees with no edema or pulses (Exhibit 2F/3). However, there are no 

objective findings to support this notation. Dr. Polansky also noted that the 

claimant had inflammatory polyarthritis (Exhibit 2F/2). 

At a September 2014 internal consultative examination, Thomas R. 

Dempsey, M.D. observed the claimant to have normal knee jerk reflexes 

bilaterally (Exhibit 12F/3-4). In June 2015, Dr. Polansky continued to 

diagnose the claimant with arthritic knees (Exhibit 17F/2). 

In terms of claimant’s alleged hip impairments, in 2005, x-rays of the left hip 

Case 1:16-cv-00157-N Document 24 Filed 12/08/16 Page 5 of 12
6

showed no evidence of fracture, dislocation, or degenerative process (Exhibit 

7F/12). There was evidence of an anterior labrum tear of the left acetabulum, 

and Michael L. Granberry, M.D. prescribed the claimant anti-inflammatory 

medication. The claimant also exhibited some pain with internal rotation 

and flexion past 90 degrees. However, she had good external rotation with no 

pain, negative straight leg raises, and negative deep tendon reflex testing. 

A 2005 MRI of the left hip showed only mild degenerative blunting of the 

acetabular labrum without frank tear or avulsion (Exhibit 7F/8). In 2009, an 

x-ray of the left hip showed a small spur of the lateral aspect of the 

acetabulum (Exhibit 7F/5). An MRI showed no evidence of marrow edema, 

fracture lines, or avascular necrosis of the left hip, and no abnormal fluid 

collections or joint effusions with the left hip joint space maintained and 

symmetric to the right hip (Exhibit 7F/4). 

A 2012 MRI of the left hip showed partial tearing or edema within the distal 

left gluteus medius muscle and tendon with moderate left trochanteric 

bursitis (Exhibit 1F/40). Additionally, the imaging study showed a small 

effusion of the left intratrochanteric bursa. 

At an internal consultative examination in September 2014, Thomas R. 

Dempsey, M.D. noted that MRI’s of the left hip in 2005 and 2009 showed no 

significant abnormalities (Exhibit 12F//2). Upon physical examination, Dr. 

Dempsey observed that claimant had full range of motion without pain in 

internal or external rotation, flexion, extension, abduction, and adduction 

bilaterally (Exhibit 12F/3-4). Dr. Dempsey also ordered x-rays of the hips, 

which showed no obvious abnormalities, and he diagnosed the claimant with 

hip pain of unknown etiology. 

In terms of claimant’s spine impairments, a June 2009 MRI of the lumbar 

spine showed spinal stenosis and degenerative disc disease present at L5-S1 

and L4-L5 (Exhibit 1F/56). The imaging study showed moderate to severe 

foraminal stenosis on the right and mild on the left. A November 2009 MRI 

of the cervical spine showed mild broad based subligamentous herniation 

without migration at C6-7 creating mild central canal narrowing and 

moderate foraminal encroachment bilaterally (Exhibit 1F/44). John P.

Couch, M.D. examined the claimant and assessed her with ruled out cervical 

radiculopathy, cervicalgia, ruled out degeneration of cervical intervertebral 

disc, ruled out spinal stenosis of the cervical region, ruled out lumbosacral 

radiculitis, disc disorder of the lumbar region, lumbar facet syndrome, 

lumbago, muscle spasm, ruled out degeneration of the thoracic intervertebral 

disc, and pain in the thoracic spine (Exhibit 1F/59). 

In April 2010, the claimant saw Dr. Couch for a lumbar epidural steroid 

Case 1:16-cv-00157-N Document 24 Filed 12/08/16 Page 6 of 12
7

injection with fluoroscopy (Exhibit 1F/11). Dr. Couch diagnosed the claimant 

with lumbar radiculitis and lumbar degenerative disc disease. In August 

2010, Dr. Couch performed and additional lumbar epidural steroid injection 

to the right L5-S1 (Exhibit 1F/18). In October 2010, Dr. Couch assessed the 

claimant with thoracic spondylosis (exhibit 1F/69).

In October 2012, Dr. Polansky noted that the claimant had chronic back and 

leg pain and observed arthritic disease in the spine with point tenderness 

over the sacroiliac bursa (Exhibit 11F/3). Dr. Polansky diagnosed the 

claimant with scoliosis, arthritis of the spine, sacroiliac bursitis, and 

neuropathy of the lower extremities. In July 2013, Dr. Polansky noted that 

the claimant had arthritis of the spine (Exhibit 2F/2). An x-ray of the cervical 

spine showed facet joint hypertrophy encroaching on the posterior aspect of 

the right C3 and right C5 neural foramina, which was not significantly 

changed from an August 2012 imagining study (Exhibit 2F/10). The x-rays 

also showed spurring with mild narrowing of the left C7 neural foramen, 

which was not significantly changed from and August 2012 imaging study. 

The overall impression was of a stable cervical spine with degenerative 

changes. X-rays of the lumbar spine showed narrowing at L5-S1 with 

degenerative endplate spurs, which was stable (Exhibit 2F/10). Additionally 

the x-rays showed mild sclerosis of the L5-S1 facet joint, but the overall 

impression [w]as of a stable lumbar spine with degenerative changes.

In January 2014, Dr. Polansky again noted that the claimant had arthritis of 

the spine (Exhibit 5F/1). In September 2014, Dr. Dempsey performed a 

consultative examination and observed the claimant to have a full range of 

motion in the thoracic spine with paraspinal muscle strength within normal 

limits and no muscle spasms (Exhibit 12F/3). The Claimant’s lumbosacral 

spine showed ten degrees of forward flexion, ten degrees of extension, ten 

degrees of lateral bending and rotation, no increased kyphosis, scoliosis, or 

lordosis, and no paraspinal muscle spasms. The claimant’s cervical spine 

showed 20 degrees of forward flexion, 20 degrees of extension, and ten 

degrees of lateral bending and rotation. Dr. Dempsey also noted that the 

claimant complained of pain on any touching of the skin on the back or the 

neck, and assessed the claimaint with low back pain, cervicalgia, pain in 

thoracic spine, and neck pain (Exhibit 12F/4). Dr. Dempsey diagnosed the 

claimant with mild degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine with mild 

foraminal stenosis at C5-C6 and C6-C7, mild lumbar degenerative disc 

disease, and thoracic pain of an unknown etiology. 

(TR. 27-29). The ALJ additionally summarized a clinical pain form completed by Dr. 

Polansky as follows:

Case 1:16-cv-00157-N Document 24 Filed 12/08/16 Page 7 of 12
8

In January 2014, Daniel Polansky, M.D. the claimants primary care 

physician, completed a clinical assessment pain form in which he opined that 

the claimant’s pain was intractable and virtually incapacitating, and that 

physical activity greatly increased the claimant’s pain causing distraction 

from tasks or total abandonment of tasks for at least two hours in an eighthour workday (Exhibit 4F/1). Additionally, Dr. Polansky opined that the 

claimant[’s] pain and/or drug side effects would be expected to be severe and 

to limit effectiveness due to distraction, inattention, drowsiness, etc. (Exhibit 

4F/2). Dr. Polansky opined that the claimant could not sit, stand, bend, or lift 

to any degree, and stated that the claimant could not engage in any form of 

gainful employment on a repetitive, competitive and productive basis over an 

eight-hour workday, forty hours each week. 

(Tr. 31). The ALJ then stated that he gave Dr. Polansky’s opinion little weight. 

(Id.) Plaintiff, however, contends that Dr. Polansky’s opinion on the clinical 

assessment pain form (above) should have been given controlling weight because it 

was supported by the medical evidence of record. (Doc. 18 at 3-6). 

“In assessing medical opinions, the ALJ must consider a number of factors in 

determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion, including (1) 

whether the physician has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and 

extent of a treating physician's relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical 

evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion; (4) how consistent the 

physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the physician’s 

specialization. These factors apply to both examining and non-examining 

physicians.” Eyre v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 586 F. App'x 521, 523 (11th Cir. 

Sept. 30, 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished) (internal citations and quotation marks 

omitted) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & (e), 416.927(c) & (e)). The Court notes 

that "although the opinion of an examining physician is generally entitled to more 

weight than the opinion of a non-examining physician, the ALJ is free to reject the 

Case 1:16-cv-00157-N Document 24 Filed 12/08/16 Page 8 of 12
9

opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion." 

Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1981);1 see also 20 C.F.R. § 

404.1527. Regardless, the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to 

different medical opinions and the reasons therefor. Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 

278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam).

In the ALJ’s opinion, the weight given to Dr. Polansky’s opinion was 

diminished because it was not consistent with the other opinions of record and 

benign imaging studies. (TR. at 31). More specifically, with regard to Dr. 

Polansky’s opinion that Turner’s problems are “virtually incapacitating”, the ALJ 

stated:

The undersigned has given this opinion little weight because it is entirely 

inconsistent with the other opinions of record. Additionally, this opinion is 

inconsistent with the claimant’s relatively benign imaging studies of her hips, 

and only mild diagnoses of her back conditions (Exhibits 7F, 1F/40 and 

12F/4). Finally, this opinion is inconsistent with Dr. Dempsey’s September 

2014 observations that the claimant had normal knee jerk reflexes, and full 

range of motion without pain on internal and external rotation, flexion, 

extension, abduction, and adduction of the bilateral hips (Exhibit 12F).

(Id.). The ALJ went on to state that Plaintiff’s “medical records show only mild 

findings with conservative treatment. She has not undergone any surgical 

procedures on her back, knees, or hips, nor has she received formal mental health 

treatment. [...] Additionally, the claimant left her last place of employment because 

of a performance issue unrelated to her alleged impairments. Most significantly, 

the claimant’s July 2013 x-rays showed stable findings when compared to prior 

																																																							 1The Eleventh Circuit, in Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopted 

as precedent decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981.

Case 1:16-cv-00157-N Document 24 Filed 12/08/16 Page 9 of 12
10

studies, indicating that her condition has not significantly changed since she was 

working prior to being fired (Exhibit 2F/10). Additionally, 2014 x-rays showed 

relatively mild findings, indicating that her physical impairments are stable and 

that she was able to work in the past with the current state of her condition 

(Exhibit 12F/4).” (Tr. 32). 2

Despite, Plaintiff’s assertions to the contrary, this Court finds that there was 

substantial evidence that contradicted Dr. Polansky’s opinion such that the ALJ did 

not err by giving his opinion as to Plaintiff’s capabilities little weight. Further, the 

ALJ’s explanation specifically articulated the reasoning behind his decision to 

diminish the weight attributed to Dr. Polansky’s opinion, i.e. due to a lack of 

consistency with other records, benign imaging studies, and the findings of a 

consultative exam. As such, Plaintiff’s assertion that Dr. Polansky’s opinion should 

have been given controlling weight is without merit. 

Plaintiff has additionally asserted that the ALJ committed reversible error by 

assigning great weight to the opinion of consultative orthopedist, Dr. Thomas R. 

Dempsey. (Doc. 18 at 2, 6-8).3

With regard to Dr. Dempsey’s opinion, the ALJ stated as follows:

In September 2014, Thomas R. Dempsey, M.D. performed an internal 

consultative examination in which he opined that the claimant could 

occasionally lift and carry up to 50 pounds, and continuously lift up to 20 

pounds (Exhibit 12F/5). Dr. Dempsey further opined that the claimant could 

																																																							 2 It is additionally worth noting that at her social security hearing, Plaintiff did not testify that she 

could not work at all, only that she had not pursued employment because “everything is a standing 

position or something along those lines, and I’m just not capable to climb up on anything like that 

anymore.” (TR. 56) 

3 The factors to be considered by the ALJ with regard to the weight given to Dr. Dempsey’s opinion 

are the same as those stated in the analysis of the weight given to Dr. Polansky’s opinion. 

Case 1:16-cv-00157-N Document 24 Filed 12/08/16 Page 10 of 12
11

sit, stand, and walk for eight hours in an eight-hour workday, and would not 

require a cane to ambulate (Exhibit 12F/6). He noted that the claimant could 

continuously reach, handle, finger, feel, and push/pull bilaterally, and could 

climb stairs and ramps frequently, climb ladders or scaffolds occasionally, 

and balance stoop, knee, crouch, and crawl continuously (Exhibit 12F/8). 

Finally, Dr. Dempsey opined that the claimant would have no environmental 

limitations. In a March 2015 letter Dr. Dempsey also stated that the 

claimant required a significant amount of narcotics and benzodiazepenes for 

relief of her symptoms, and that she would be limited in bending, lifting, or 

carrying any significant weight (Exhibit 15F). Dr. Dempsey recommended an 

expert opinion of her functional status. The undersigned gives Dr. Dempsey’s 

opinion great weight because it is generally consistent with the claimant’s 

benign imaging studies of the hips and back with only mild diagnoses. 

However, the undersigned has limited the claimant to light exertion to 

address the claimant’s subjective complaints of pain and her use of narcotic 

pain relievers. 

(Tr. 31). Plaintiff contends that Dr. Dempsey’s opinion failed to accurately present 

the medical records that were presented to him and that his opinions are not 

supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. 18 at 7-8). Namely, Plaintiff contends 

that Dr. Dempsey incorrectly described a 2009 MRI and failed to reference x-rays 

done in 2013. (Id. at 7). Plaintiff additionally asserts that the results of x-rays and 

MRIs of Plaintiff’s left hip, cervical, lumbar, and thoracic spine do not support Dr. 

Dempsey’s opinion that Plaintiff could sit, stand, and walk for 8-hours at one time 

for an 8-hour workday. (Id. at 8). 

While there may be medical records contradicting Dr. Dempsey’s opinion, this 

Court is not free to re-weigh the evidence. See Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1239. 

Rather, this Court must determine whether there was relevant substantial evidence 

to support the conclusion of the ALJ. In the instant action, the ALJ explicitly stated 

the weight given to Dr. Dempsey’s opinion and articulated the reasoning for the 

same. Despite the disparities pointed out by Plaintiff, this Court finds that there is 

Case 1:16-cv-00157-N Document 24 Filed 12/08/16 Page 11 of 12
12

adequate evidence in Plaintiff’s medical records and the record as a whole to 

support Dr. Dempsey’s opinion. Moreover, the ALJ further limited Plaintiff based 

on her subjective complaints and use of pain medicine. As a result, this Court does 

not find error in the ALJ’s assignment of weight to Dr. Dempsey’s opinion and finds 

Plaintiff’s claim to be without merit. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has raised two claims in bringing this action; both are without merit. 

Upon consideration of the entire record, the Court finds "such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. 

Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Secretary's 

decision be AFFIRMED, see Fortenberry v. Harris, 612 F.2d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 

1980), and that this action be DISMMISSED. Judgment will be entered by 

separate Order.

DONE this 8th day of December, 2016.

/s/ Katherine P. Nelson

KATHERINE P. NELSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00157-N Document 24 Filed 12/08/16 Page 12 of 12