Hughes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 29

ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 25 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the action for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable Mary G. Lewis on 07/17/2014. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Tracy M. Hughes,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin,1
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 1:13-1116-MGL

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) 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 Tracy M. Hughes (“Plaintiff”), brought this action seeking judicial review of the final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim
for.Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”).
On July1, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report in which she recommended
that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded for further administrative
proceedings. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report. On, July 16, 2014,
the Commissioner filed a notice stating she would not file objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report. (ECF No. 26.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final

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.

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 and
Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and may accept, reject or modify,
in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
After a careful review of the record, including the findings of the ALJ, the briefs from
Plaintiff and the Commissioner, and the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court finds the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts in the instant case and that the
conclusions are proper. The Magistrate Judge's findings are hereby specifically
incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, this action is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
and is remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration, as specifically set forth
in the Magistrate Judge's Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
July 17, 2014
Spartanburg, South Carolina