Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/2:2016cv03826/232478/20
Timestamp: 2018-06-25 06:44:53
Document Index: 324255913

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 405', '§ 636', '§ 405', '§ 636', '§ 405']

ORDER adopting 17 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U for Simpson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Fourth Circuit South Carolina South Carolina District Court Simpson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Filing 20
Simpson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER adopting 17 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the case for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 2/12/2018. (vdru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Amy Rae Simpson, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Nancy A. Berryhill, ) Acting Commissioner of the ) Social Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________) Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-3826-BHH ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Amy Rae Simpson’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision, which denied Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits. The record includes the report and recommendation (“Report”) of a United States Magistrate Judge, which was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C. In the Report, which was filed on January 26, 2018, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remand the case to the Commissioner for further administrative action as set forth in the Report. In a notice filed on February 9, 2018, Defendant informed the Court that she will not be filing objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 17). Therefore, it is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and this case is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action as set forth in the Report. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge February 12, 2018 Charleston, South Carolina 2