Brown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

EASTERN DIVISION

Case No. 4:25-CV-00072-M-KS

MARK BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

FRANK J. BISIGNANO,

Defendant.

This matter comes before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation (““M&R”)

prepared by United States Magistrate Kimberly A. Swank. DE 15. Judge Swank “recommends

that the case be remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

for further proceedings.” DE 15 at 1. Judge Swank directed the parties to file any objections on

or before June 2, 2026. DE 15 at 13. Neither party has filed objections. Accordingly, the M&R

is ripe for consideration.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation carries no presumptive weight. The court “may

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the .. . recommendation|] . . . receive further evidence

or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord

Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976). The court “shall make a de novo determination of

those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection

is made.” Id. § 636(b)(1) (modification added). Absent a specific and :imel:y objection, the court

reviews only for “clear error” and need not give any explanation for adopting the recommendation.

Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

Judge Swank recommends remanding this matter to the Commissioner for further

reconsideration because the Administrative Law Juge (“ALJ”) erred in two ways. First, the ALJ

failed “to evaluate the medical opinions of Dr. Antony and Dr. Rodriguez in accordance with the

applicable law and regulations.” DE 15 at 7-8. In particular, although the ALJ “determined that

Dr. Antony’s opinion was not entitled to controlling weight,” the ALJ nonetheless “failed to

address the length and frequency of the relationship between Dr. Antony and Plaintiff and the

nature and extent of the relationship.” DE 15 at 10. Likewise, although “the ALJ discounted Dr.

Rodriguez’s opinion based on inconsistencies in the record,” the ALJ did not “cite[] specific

portions of record evidence that would enable the court to meaningfully review that assessment of

Dr. Rodriguez’s opinion.” DE 15 at 10. Second, although the ALJ “discredited Plaintiff's

statements about his symptoms by pointing to his activities of daily living, such as fishing and yard

work,” the ALJ “failed to explain how these activities show Plaintiff could perform fulltime work

during the period at issue.” DE 15 at 12. Judge Swank specifically points to Plaintiffs testimony

that “he wanted to fish during the relevant period but could not” and “attempted to trim a bush in

his yard once but hurt himself,” as inconsistent with the ALJ’s finding that those activities indicate

lower symptom severity.

Upon careful review of those recommendations and the record presented, and finding no

clear error, the court ADOPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge as its own. For the

reasons stated therein, this matter is to the Commissioner for further consideration.

SO ORDERED this 23 day of June, 2026.

need yee.

RICHARD E. MYERS II

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE