Fountain v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 31

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 26 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the action to the Commissioner for further consideration. Signed by Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 03/17/2014.(bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
James D. Fountain,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 0:12-cv-02704-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [ ECF No. 26], filed on February 18, 2014, recommending that the
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) be reversed,
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), 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
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Defendant does not intend to file objections to the Report. See Defendant’s Notice of Not
1

Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 28]. Further,
Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report.
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).
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 magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 26] 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 recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
March 17, 2014
Greenville, South Carolina

2