Bates v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 24

ORDER adopting 20 Report and Recommendation. The decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits is reversed and the action is remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative action consistent with this order and the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 10/30/13.(mflo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jonathan Bates,

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

Civil Action No.: 1:12-cv-2225-MGL

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. Plaintiff Jonathan
Bates (“Plaintiff”) brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim for
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”).
On October 3, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
in which she determined that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by
substantial evidence. (ECF No. 20.) Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended
that the case be remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 20 at 19.) Plaintiff filed no
objections to the Report and Recommendation. On October 21, 2013, the Commissioner
filed “Defendant’s Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of

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 Defendant in this lawsuit.

Magistrate Judge.” (ECF No. 22.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court
is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which
specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to him 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 decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits is reversed and
the action is remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative
action consistent with this order and the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
October 30, 2013
Spartanburg, South Carolina