Grall v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER AND OPINION adopting the 15 Report and Recommendation, reversing the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the case to the Commissioner for further consideration. Signed by Honorable Margaret B. Seymour on 10/16/2017. (bgoo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Christopher David Grall,
) C/A No. 0:16-2972-MBS
) ORDER AND OPINION
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security,
Plaintiff Christopher David Grall filed the within action on August 30, 2016, seeking judicial
review of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claims
for social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial handling. On September 22, 2017,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she noted that Plaintiff had
supplemented the record with new documentation at the Appeals Council level. The Appeals
Council admitted the evidence into the record and summarily stated that it found the information did
not provide a basis for changing the decision of the administrative law judge who had rejected
Plaintiff’s claims. The Magistrate Judge, in reviewing the entire record, could not determine whether
substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits because the Appeals Council did not provide
any explanation for its finding. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended the case be
remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration. On October 6, 2017, the Commissioner
filed a Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is
made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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).
The court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by
reference. The case is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanded to
the Commissioner for further consideration as set forth herein and in the Report and
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
October 16, 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?