Brown v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 21 Report and Recommendations as set out. Signed by Chief Judge Margaret B Seymour on 7/24/12. (jsmi, ) Modified on 7/25/2012 (jsmi, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Ricky Eugene Brown,

)
) C/A No. 6:11-1500-MBS
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of
)
Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Plaintiff Ricky Eugene Brown filed the within action on July 6, 2011, seeking judicial review
of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s application for
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 Kevin F. McDonald for pretrial handling. On June 29, 2012, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report of Magistrate Judge in which, among other things, he determined
that (1) the ALJ improperly considered the opinion of Randy L. Adams, M.Ed., a vocational
evaluator; (2) the ALJ should consider the record as a whole, including new evidence from C. David
Tollison, Ph.D., and Stephen F. Worsham, M.D.; (3) the ALJ should obtain additional vocational
expert testimony based upon the new evidence and reevaluation of expert opinions. Accordingly,
the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed under sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), with a remand of the cause to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report of Magistrate Judge. On July 16, 2012, the Commissioner
filed a Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge.

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). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
This court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. This court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been filed. Id. 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 of Magistrate Judge and incorporates it herein by
reference. The decision of the Commissioner is reversed under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
with a remand of the cause to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this Order
and the Report of Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Chief United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
July 24, 2012.

2