Orff v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 22 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 08/08/2017. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Heather A. Orff,
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security Administration, 1
Civil Action No.: 0:16-01009-JMC
This social security matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Paige
Gossett’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 22), filed on July 20, 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 22.)
Defendant replied, notifying the court that she would not be filing any objections. (ECF No. 24.)
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.
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, 416 F.3d at 315 (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. 22) and REVERSES
and REMANDS the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further
consideration and discussion of Plaintiff’s migraines.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
August 8, 2017
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?