Worth v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and that the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative action. signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 8/28/2012. (ydav, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Herbert P. Worth, III, on behalf of Virginia
J. Worth,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No.: 0:11-1221-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff, Herbert P. Worth, III, on behalf of the deceased claimant, Virginia J. Worth
(“Worth”), brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) to obtain
judicial review of a final decision of the defendant, Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”), denying her claims for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). This matter is before the court for review of the
Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 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 objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

1

part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Further,
Defendant has filed a Notice that it will not be filing objection to the Report and
Recommendation. [Doc/ # 26.] In the absence of objections to the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The
Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) stating that “in the absence of a timely
filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and
incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED pursuant to sentence four
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and that the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further
administrative action as set forth in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
August 28, 2012
2