PRESLEY v. COLVIN et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 10 Report and Recommendations. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 8/19/2014. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
GARRY E. PRESLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-123 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle. (Doc. 10). The Magistrate Judge, having
reviewed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), recommends
affirming the decision of the Commissioner because the Administrative Law Judge’s
findings were supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.
The Magistrate Judge further recommends denying the Plaintiff’s request for remand
based on additional medical evidence because the Plaintiff failed to establish good
cause for his failure to submit this evidence at the administrative level. The Plaintiff has
objected to the Recommendation. (Doc. 11). Specifically, the Plaintiff objects to the
Magistrate Judge’s findings that the ALJ properly considered the opinion of consultative
examiner, Dr. Reddy, and that the additional medical evidence does not warrant
remand.
Contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertions, the ALJ appropriately discounted Dr.
Reddy’s opinion based on his one-time examination of the Plaintiff and the

inconsistency of Dr. Reddy’s opinion with other evidence in the record. Regarding the
additional medical evidence, the Plaintiff states there is “apparent confusion” regarding
what evidence the Plaintiff claims is new and material. (Doc. 11 at 4). Perhaps so.
Citing to Doc. 4-8 at 68-84, the Plaintiff asserts that he timely and properly submitted
additional evidence to the Appeals Council. However, this is not the evidence the
Plaintiff argues is new and material. (See Docs. 6 at 9-11; 7 at 1-25). Further, if this
evidence were timely submitted to the Appeals Council, as the Plaintiff claims, it would
not be new evidence pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Plaintiff does not argue any
other basis to show good cause for his failure to submit the additional evidence at the
administrative level.
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.
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 19th day of August, 2014.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-