Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 37

ORDER ADOPTS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 32 . The Commissioner's final decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/14/2011. (aswi)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Dena M. Miller,
Plaintiff,
v.
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
_________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No.: 0:10-1548-TMC

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), (Dkt. # 32), filed on October 24, 2011, recommending that the
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim
for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) be reversed, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), and remanded to the Commissioner for administrative action consistent with the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards
which this court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate
Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive
weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or

1

recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties were notified of their right to file objections (Dkt. # 32 at 10). Plaintiff has not
filed any objections to the Report. Defendant does not intend to file objections to the Report.
See Defendant’s Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge (Dkt. # 33).
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this
court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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.’” Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report
and Recommendation results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the
District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d
91 (4th Cir. 1984).
The role of the federal judiciary in the administrative scheme established by the Social
Security Act is a limited one. Section 405(g) of the Act provides, “the findings of the
Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be
conclusive . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “Substantial evidence has been defined innumerable times as
more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance.” Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541, 543
(4th Cir. 1964). This standard precludes a de novo review of the factual circumstances that

2

substitutes the court’s findings for those of the Commissioner. See Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157
(4th Cir. 1971). The court must uphold the Commissioner’s decision as long as it is supported by
substantial evidence. See Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1972). “From this it
does not follow, however, that the findings of the administrative agency are to be mechanically
accepted. The statutorily granted right of review contemplates more than an uncritical rubber
stamping of the administrative agency.” Flack v. Cohen, 413 F.2d 278, 279 (4th Cir. 1969).
“[T]he courts must not abdicate their responsibility to give careful scrutiny to the whole record to
assure that there is a sound foundation for the [Commissioner’s] findings, and that this conclusion
is rational.” Vitek, 438 F. 2d at 1157-58.
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case. The court accepts
the Report of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons set out
in the Report, the Commissioner’s final decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
November 14, 2011

3