Graham-Willis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
18
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 13 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner remanding the action for further proceedings consistent with the magistrate judges recommendation under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 12/27/2013. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Brook Graham-Willis,
)
) Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-02489-JMC
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
ORDER
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
This matter is before the court for a review of the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [ ECF No. 13], filed on December 6, 2013, recommending that the
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim
for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) be reversed, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), and remanded to the Commissioner for administrative action consistent with the magistrate
judge’s recommendation. 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
1
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 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).
Defendant does not intend to file objections to the Report. See Defendant’s Notice of Not
Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of magistrate judge [ECF No. 15].
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). 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). 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 provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case. The court ACCEPTS
the Report of the magistrate judge and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons set out
in the Report, the Commissioner’s final decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for further
2
proceedings consistent with the magistrate judge’s recommendation under sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
December 27, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina
3
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?