Mizell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 15 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four (4) of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the action for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 11/19/2015. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Vena Mizell,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Commissioner of Social Security
)
Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-04484-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of United States Magistrate Judge Paige
Gossett’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), filed on October 22, 2015 (ECF No. 15),
recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”)
denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income be
reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. The Report sets forth the relevant
facts and legal standards which this court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report 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, which 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 to which specific objections are made. Defendant notified the court that it would not be
objecting to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. (ECF No. 17.)
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,

1

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 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15), REVERSES the final decision of the
Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental
Security Income pursuant to sentence four (4) of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and REMANDS for further
administrative proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
November 19, 2015
Orangeburg, South Carolina

2