Hill v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 36

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 32 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the action for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 08/01/2017. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
David Roy Hill,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner )
)
of Social Security Administration,1
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 0:15-05091-JMC

ORDER

This social security matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Paige
Gossett’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 32), filed on July 19, 2017,
recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed, and this matter be remanded to the
Commissioner for further administrative proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
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 Matthews 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. Diamond v. Colonial Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the report. (ECF No. 32).
Defendant replied, notifying the court that she would not be filing any objections. (ECF No. 33).

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted for
Carolyn Colvin as the named defendant because she became the Acting Commissioner of Social
Security on January 23, 2017.
1 

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,
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 and does not contain clear error. The
court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 32), and
REVERSES and REMANDS the Commissioner’s decision for further administrative
proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further analysis of Plaintiff’s residual functional
capacity.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
August 1, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

2