Brown v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 27

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 23 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding the action for additional administrative proceedings. Signed by the Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 02/21/2013. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Carol Brown,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin,1 Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 1:11-cv-03245-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [Dkt. No. 23], filed on January 31, 2013, recommending that the
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim
for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which this court incorporates herein
without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 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. The recommendation 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 and Recommendation to which specific objections

1
Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 14, 2013.
Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin should be
substituted for Michael J. Astrue as the defendant in this suit. No further action need be taken to
continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).

1

are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties were notified of their right to file objections. On February 19, 2013, the
Commissioner filed her Reply to the Report [Dkt. No. 24] providing notice that the agency will
not file objections to the Report. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, 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). Instead, the court
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 and Recommendation 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); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant
case. The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report [Dkt. No. 23] and incorporates it
herein by reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the Commissioner’s final decision is
reversed and remanded for additional administrative proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
February 21, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina

2