Cook v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 22

ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendation. 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 7/28/2016.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Michael D. Cook,

)
) C/A No. 6:15-2431-MBS
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ORDER
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Plaintiff Michael D. Cook filed the within action on June 16, 2015, seeking judicial review
of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claims for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income 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 July 7, 2016, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report of Magistrate Judge in which he determined that (1) the
administrative law judge (ALJ) did not properly consider the opinion of Dr. Garde, a consultative
examiner; and (2) the hypothetical presented to the vocational expert differed from the residual
functional capacity assessment. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommended that the case be
remanded for further administrative proceedings. Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and
Recommendation. On July 25, 2016, the Commissioner filed a Notice of Not Filing Objections to
the Report and Recommendation of the 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). 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 of Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
July 28, 2016

2