Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 24

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 22 Report and Recommendations; this action is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) and is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on June 17, 2010. (cwil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Randel Roberts, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ______________________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C/A No. 0:09-1607-JFA-PJG

ORDER

This is an action brought by the plaintiff, Randel Roberts, pursuant to sections 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, as amended, to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") denying his claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein she suggests that the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits should be reversed under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and remanded to the Commissioner further proceedings. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge opines that the court cannot determine if the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence because, as a result of the additional evidence submitted to the Appeals Council, there is a reasonable possibility that the new evidence would change the ALJ's decision. Wilkins v. Secy'y Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 953 F.2d 93, 95­96
1

The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 7 3 .0 2 . The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive w e i g h t , and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 ( 1 9 7 6 ) . The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific o b j e c t i o n is made and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate J u d g e , or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

(4th Cir. 1991). The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. The plaintiff did not file objections. The Commissioner, however, filed a notice stating that he would not file objections to the Report. Thus, it appears the matter is ripe for review by this court. After a careful review of the record, including the findings of the ALJ, the briefs from the plaintiff and the Commissioner, and the Magistrate Judge's Report, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts in the instant case and that the conclusions are proper. The Magistrate Judge's findings are hereby specifically incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings as stated herein and in the Magistrate Judge's Report. IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 17, 2010 Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge

2