Butler v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 29

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 25 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 Mary G. Lewis on 05/11/2015. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
WILLIE BUTLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-1239-MGL-SVH
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND REVERSING AND REMANDING DEFENDANT’S FINAL DECISION
This is a Social Security appeal in which Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision
of Defendant denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). The matter is before the
Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge
suggesting to the Court that Defendant’s final decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim for DIB be reversed
and remanded for further proceedings as set forth within the Report. The Report was made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 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 the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on April 17, 2015, and Defendant filed her reply to
the Report on April 29, 2015, stating that she would not be filing any objections to the Report. “[I]n
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). Moreover, a failure to object waives
appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
Plaintiff filed his application for DIB on October 23, 2012, stating that his disability
commenced on September 14, 2012. His application was denied initially and upon reconsideration.
Plaintiff then requested a hearing, which the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted on
September 26, 2013. On October 25, 2013, the ALJ held that Plaintiff held that Plaintiff was not
disabled under the Act. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review. Accordingly,
the ALJ’s decision became Defendants final decision for purposes of judicial review. On April 3,
2014, Plaintiff filed this suit seeking judicial review of Defendants final decision.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of
the Court that Defendant’s final decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim for DIB is REVERSED AND
REMANDED for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 11th day of May, 2015, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary G. Lewis
MARY G. LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2