THOMPKINS v. COLVIN
Filing
16
ORDER ADOPTING 13 Report and Recommendations. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 9/15/2014. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
QUINCE A. THOMPKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-96 (MTT)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle. (Doc. 13). The Magistrate Judge recommends
affirming the Commissioner’s decision because it is supported by substantial evidence
and is based on proper legal standards. The Plaintiff has objected to the
Recommendation. (Doc. 14). Specifically, the Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate
Judge’s finding that the ALJ properly evaluated the opinions from treating psychiatrist
Dr. Barton and examining psychologist Dr. Rose, and to the finding that the ALJ
properly evaluated the Plaintiff’s credibility.
The Court has thoroughly considered the Plaintiff’s objection and has made a de
novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which the Plaintiff objects.
As the Magistrate Judge explained, the ALJ clearly articulated “good cause” for
discounting Dr. Barton’s opinion and sufficiently explained the grounds for giving greater
weight to Dr. Rose’s opinion. The ALJ adequately explained his assessment of the
Plaintiff’s credibility after thorough evaluation of the Plaintiff’s medical condition and
other relevant evidence in the administrative record. Accordingly, the Court accepts
and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
The Recommendation is adopted and made the order of this Court. The decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of September, 2014.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?