Seek v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
29
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 24 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the case for further administrative action. Signed by Honorable Mary G. Lewis on 01/13/2015. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
TIMOTHY ROBERT SEEK, JR.
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:14-63-MGL-PJG
§
§
§
§
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
REVERSING DEFENDANT’S DECISION,
AND REMANDING THE CASE FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
This is a Social Security appeal in which Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of
Defendant denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security
Income (SSI). The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court that Defendant’s final
decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for DIB and SSI be reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) and the case be remanded to Defendant for further administrative action as set out in the
Report. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 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 the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on November 24, 2014, and on December 2, 2014,
Defendant filed a notice with the Court that she did not intend to file any objections to the Report.
“[I]n 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives
appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of
the Court that Defendant’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s claims for DIB and SSI is REVERSED
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and the case is REMANDED to Defendant for
further administrative action as set out in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 13th day of January, 2015, in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
s/ Mary G. Lewis
MARY G. LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?