Price v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
39
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 35 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the matter for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 07/31/2014. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Michael C. Price,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of
)
Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________ )
C/A No. 1:13-1064-JFA-SVH
ORDER
The plaintiff, Michael C. Price, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to
obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(Commissioner) denying his claim for disability insurance benefits (DIB).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a comprehensive Report
and Recommendation wherein she opines that the Commissioner’s decision should be
remanded for further administrative action. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts
and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The parties were advised of their right to submit objections to the Report and
Recommendation which was filed on July 28, 2014. The Commissioner has responded
indicating that she will not file objections to the Report and Recommendation.
1
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. 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 the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
It is the duty of the ALJ reviewing the case, and not the responsibility of the
courts, to make findings of fact and resolve conflicts in the evidence. This court’s
scope of review is limited to the determination of whether the findings of the
Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence taking the record as a whole,
Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996), and whether the correct law was
applied, Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2002).
After a careful review of the record, including the findings of the ALJ, the
briefs from the plaintiff and the Commissioner, the Magistrate Judge’s Report, and the
Commissioner’s notice that it will not file objections, this court finds that the Report
is proper and is incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is reversed and remanded for further
review as set out in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and this
order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 31, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
2
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?