Coleman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 19

ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 14 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 J. Michelle Childs on 06/26/2014. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
John Robert Coleman,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin,
)
Acting Commissioner of the
)
Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 1:13-1442-JMC
ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the court for review of the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 14), filed June 3, 2014, regarding Plaintiff John Robert
Coleman’s (“Plaintiff”) claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”).

The Report

recommends that the court reverse the Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin’s (“the Acting
Commissioner”) decision that Plaintiff has not been disabled since September 8, 2009. (Id. at 34.) The Report further recommends that the action be remanded for further proceedings. (Id. at
1.) 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 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

1

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).
The parties were notified of their right to file objections. Plaintiff did not file any
objections to the Report. On June 12, 2014, the Acting Commissioner filed her Reply to the
Report providing notice that the agency does not object to the Report. (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). Instead, the court 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 and Recommendation provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant
matter. The court ACCEPTS the magistrate judge’s Report (ECF No. 14) and incorporates it
herein by reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the Acting Commissioner’s final
decision that Plaintiff is not and has not been disabled since September 8, 2009 is REVERSED
and REMANDED for additional administrative proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

United States District Court Judge

June 26, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

3