McBroom v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. The case is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 1/30/2017. (gnan )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kerry W. McBroom,
) C/A No. 4:15-4087-MBS
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security,
Plaintiff Kerry W. McBroom filed the within action on October 2, 2015, seeking judicial
review of a final decision of Defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s
claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III for pretrial handling. On January 19, 2017,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the case
be remanded for the ALJ to evaluate the opinions of the treating physicians under a proper
application of the Treating Physician Rule and regulatory standards. The Magistrate Judge further
recommended that the ALJ consider any impact the proper application of the Treating Physician Rule
has on the Step Three analysis, the determination of Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity; and on
the availability of work for Plaintiff in the national economy at Step Five. On January 25, 2017, the
Commissioner filed a Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff informs the court that he does not intend to file objections to the Report
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is
made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de
novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by
reference. The case is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanded to
the Commissioner for further consideration as set forth herein and in the Report and
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
January 30, 2017
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?