Rush 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 administrative review. Signed by Honorable Timothy M. Cain on 08/03/2017. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Jay Randolph Rush,
Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Civil Action No. 0:16-cv-1340-TMC
Plaintiff, Jay Randolph Rush, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and
1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”)1 denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under the Social
Security Act (“SSA”). (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before
the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that
the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) for
further proceedings. (ECF No. 22). On August 2, 2017, the Commissioner filed notice that she
would not file objections. (ECF No. 25). Rush filed no objections and the time to do so has now
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–
71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on January 23, 2017.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Berryhill should be substituted for Carolyn W. Colvin as the defendant in this
adopting the Report. 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).
After a careful and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set
forth above, the court adopts the Report (ECF No. 22), which is incorporated herein by
reference. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s final decision is REVERSED and REMANDED
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative review as set forth in
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
August 3, 2017
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?