Crosby v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 25

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 24 Report and Recommendation, granting 20 Motion to Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Signed by Honorable Timothy M. Cain on 03/21/2014. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Eddie Ken Crosby, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,1
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:13-825-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, Eddie Ken Crosby, III, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and
1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying his claim for Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental
Security Income benefits under the Social Security Act. (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 motion for a remand
(ECF No. 20) be granted, and the case be remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), to the Commissioner for further administrative action consistent with the Report. (ECF
No. 24). Neither party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
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, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for

Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on
February 14, 2012. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.25(d), Colvin should be substituted for Michael J.
Astrue.
1

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 thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report and
incorporates it herein by reference. The Commissioner’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 20) is
GRANTED. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s final decision is remanded pursuant to sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the ALJ to assess whether Plaintiff meets Listing 12.05B in light
of all relevant evidence and, if necessary, to call on the services of a medical expert to determine
Plaintiff’s onset of disability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
March 21, 2013