United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Catherine
Salinas's Final Report and Recommendation 
(“Final R&R”). The Final R&R recommends
the Court reverse and remand the decision of the Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration
(“Commissioner”) to deny Plaintiff Cleon Thelton
Day, III's (“Plaintiff”) application for a
period of disability, disability insurance benefits
(“DIB”), and supplemental security income
October 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed an application for SSI, and
on October 30, 2012, Plaintiff applied for a period of
disability and DIB. (Transcript  (“Tr.”) at
224-32). In both applications, Plaintiff alleged a disability
onset of June 1, 2010. (Tr. at 217, 224). On January 30,
2013, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”)
denied Plaintiff's application, and upon reconsideration,
on April 4, 2013, the SSA affirmed its denial. (Tr. at
60-115). Plaintiff appealed to an Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”), who, on October 20, 2015, denied
Plaintiff's claim, finding Plaintiff was not disabled.
(Tr. at 13-31). Plaintiff appealed the ALJ's decision to
the Appeals Council (“AC”), which, on November
22, 2016, denied Plaintiff's request for review. (Tr. at
1-6). On January 23, 2017, Plaintiff appealed the AC's
decision to this Court. (, ).
Facts and ALJ's Findings
who was fifty-eight years old when he filed his application,
alleges disability due to diabetes, high blood pressure, and
depression. (Tr. at 62, 74, 88, 102). Plaintiff has a college
education, and his past relevant work experience includes
serving as a customer service representative and counselor.
(Tr. 26, 39). According to the ALJ, Plaintiff has not engaged
in substantial gainful activity since July 1, 2010, the
alleged onset date. (Tr. at 19). The ALJ found
Plaintiff's severe impairments were: major depressive
disorder; anxiety disorder; diabetes mellitus; hypertension;
obesity; and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). (Tr. at
determining Plaintiff's residual functional capacity
(“RFC”), the ALJ concluded Plaintiff had the RFC
to perform “less than a full range of medium
work.” (Tr. at 22). The ALJ found Plaintiff is able to
lift fifty pounds occasionally and twenty-five pounds
frequently, can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, stoop,
kneel, crouch, crawl, and balance, perform simple, routine,
repetitive tasks in a work environment free of fast-paced
production requirements, make simple work decisions, and have
occasional interaction with co-workers, supervisor, and the
public. (Id.). The ALJ found Plaintiff can never
climb ropes, ladders, and scaffolds, and that Plaintiff
should avoid concentrated exposure to extreme vibrations,
hazardous machinery, and unprotected heights. (Id.).
determining whether there were jobs that Plaintiff could
perform, the ALJ relied on the testimony of a vocational
expert (“VE”) and found there were “jobs
that exist in significant numbers in the national economy
that the claimant can perform.” (Tr. at 26). Based on
the VE's testimony, the ALJ found Plaintiff can perform
the requirements of medium, unskilled occupations such as a
hand packager, warehouse worker, and hospital cleaner.
(Id.). The ALJ concluded Plaintiff was not disabled.
(Id. at 27).
contends that the Commissioner erred because the ALJ
concluded there were “few treatment records” with
respect to Plaintiff's mental impairments. ( at
16-19). Plaintiff argues that the ALJ disregarded the records
of (1) Christine Lloyd, a mental health technician at Grady
Hospital and Plaintiff's case manager, who Plaintiff met
with in person twice per month from September 2013 through
December 2014, and (2) Dana Abraham, a senior licensed mental
health clinician with Grady Hospital, who Plaintiff met with
during a weekly outpatient depression group between September
2013 and November 2013. ( at 16-19; see also
 at 6-7).
January 30, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued her Final
R&R. The Magistrate Judge determined that the ALJ erred
because, on review, it was unclear whether the ALJ considered
all of the evidence in the record. ( at 18-20). The
Magistrate Judge found that, “[w]ith no mention of Ms.
Lloyd or Ms. Abraham's records in the in the ALJ's
decisions, [she] [could not] determine if the ALJ adequately
considered that evidence and properly weighed it.”
( ¶ 18). Plaintiff did not file any objections to
the Final R&R.
Review of a Magistrate ...