Campbell v. Berryhill

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING the 21 Report and Recommendations, affirming the Acting Commissioner's final decision, closing this civil action, and directing the Clerk to enter final judgment in favor of the Acting Commissioner. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 06/01/2018. (thb)

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

GERARD CARMICHAEL

CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
V.

CV417-094

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.

ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Gerard Carmichael Campbell objects to the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation(R&R)that the final decision ofthe Acting Commissioner be affirmed(doc. 21).
Doc. 22. He refers, again, to the Court's prior decision in 2013. Id. at 2, citing CV412-304.

The magistrate judge there recommended dismissal because plaintiff had failed to demonstrate
exhaustion ofthe administrative process. CV412-304, doc. 6. District Judge Moore declined to

adopt the dismissal recommendation, noting that plaintiff had finally demonstrated exhaustion by
providing a copy of his denied request for review by the Appeals Council. CV412-304, doc. 10.
Plaintiff clearly misunderstands the nature of the district judge's Order in that case. That Order
noted only that he had exhausted his administrative remedies - in other words, the district judge
merely concluded that Campbell had completed the steps necessary to get into this Court.
CV412-304, doc. 10. The Court made absolutely no finding whatsoever regarding the merits of
his claim.

After service of the Complaint on the Commissioner, Campbell voluntarily dismissed his

case, ostensibly on the advice of counsel. See doc. 22 at 1-2; CV412-304, doc. 19 (dismissing

without prejudice). In this case, he has for the first time received a decision evaluating the merits
of his case. Doc. 21. The two cases are not interchangeable, and no finding from CV412-304
binds the Court in CV417-094.

Instead of lodging any objection to the Court's treatment of the merits in this case ~

recommending affirming the Commissioner's decision that he failed to prove that his medically

determinable impairments were "medically severe" at Step 3 (doc. 21) ~ Campbell accuses the

magistrate judge ofignoring the Court's prior decision "order[ing] the Court to proceed with [his]
case." Doc. 22 at 1. But, as explained above. District Judge Moore's Order in that case

(CV412-304, doc. 10) only allowed plaintiffs Complaint to be served on the Commissioner. It

did nothing else. The finding that plaintiff had, after all, exhausted the administrative review

process prior to coming to federal court is completely irrelevant to the merits in this case. And
plaintiff has not even hinted at any way that the magistrate judge's recommendation on the merits
in this case is wrong.

Instead, he claims to have "pertinent documentation" that he will only provide in person at

a hearing. Doc.22 at 1. As the magistrate judge explained in the R&R,there is no entitlement to

a hearing where the record is unambiguous. Doc. 21 aX 3; see also S.D. Ga. L. R. 12 (oral
argument may be permitted upon request at the discretion of the Court). And the record here is
unambiguous that Campbell's diagnosed ailments are not medically severe. Doc. 21 at 5-11;

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 404.1521(a), 416.920(c), 416.921(a). To the extent that Campbell is
now trying to introduce new material into the record that was before neither the ALJ nor the

Appeals Council on review,' this Court cannot consider it. Evidence which has not been timely
incorporated into the record before the ALJ ''''cannot be considered by the District Court" in

reviewing the Commissioner's final decision. Matthews v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 589, 593 (3d Cir.
2001)(emphasis added); see also Keeton v. Dep't ofHealth & Human Servs.,2\ F.3d 1064, 1066
(11th Cir. 1994)(where the Appeals Council, as here, denies review of the ALJ's decision the
"record" the district court reviews includes the evidence considered by the ALJ and the Appeals

Council).^ Put differently, while he may feel he is better able to argue his case in person than on
paper,there is nothing for Campbell to show this Court at a hearing that he was unable to set forth
in his briefs.

After a careful^novo review of the record in this case, the Court concurs with the R&R.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R as its opinion, affirms the Acting Commissioner's
final decision, closes this civil action, and directs the Clerk to enter final judgment in favor of the
Acting Commissioner.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this /^ day of June, 2018.
j. Ry^DMjtfALL,Chief judge
UNITEDI^TES DISTRICT COURT
.SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

' The Appeals Council considered records provided from Curtis V. Cooper Primary Health Care
prior to denying review of the ALJ's decision, tr. 8-9, and thus made those records part of the
Administrative Record. After that denial, the record closed. Anything not submitted prior to the
Appeals Council's denial of review is therefore "new" material.

^ Any medical records he may have gathered in the years since the Commissioner's final
decision was made are simply not relevant to this Court's review ~ though they may be relevant
should he reapply for benefits. Review of the Commissioner's decision is limited to the record
before the ALJ at the time of the decision.