Rolon v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 21 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the action for further consideration. Signed by Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 07/17/2014. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
William Joseph Rolon,
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security Administration,
Civil Action No.: 0:13-cv-1009-JMC
This matter is before the court for a review of the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), (ECF No. 27), filed on June 17, 2014, recommending that the decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claims for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) 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
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties were notified of their right to file objections (ECF No. 21 at 10). On July 3,
2014, the Commissioner filed her Reply to the Report (ECF No. 23), but only stated to rely on
Defendant’s previously filed memo. (ECF No. 19).
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, including the briefs from Plaintiff and the
Commissioner, the magistrate judge's Report, and Commissioner’s objections thereto, the court finds
the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case. The court
ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s Report [Dkt. No. 21] 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
July 17, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?