United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
RANDAL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE.
se plaintiff Gerard Carmichael Campbell objects to the
magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R)
that the final decision of the 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 of the
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.
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.
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 of ignoring 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.
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 at 3; see also S.D. Ga. L. R. 7.2 (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; see 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 of Health &
Human Servs., 21 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.
careful de 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.
 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 ...