Sederbaum v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
24
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 19 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 Timothy M. Cain on 06/08/2015. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Gary M. Sederbaum,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-1777-TMC
ORDER
Plaintiff Gary M. Sederbaum (“Sederbaum”) 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 under the Social
Security Act. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) of the United States Magistrate Judge, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and
Local Civ. Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.).
(ECF No. 19).
The Report recommends that the
Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) for
further proceedings consistent with the Report. Id. Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the
Report, and on June 5, 2015, the Commissioner filed a notice of her intent not to file any
objections to the Report. (ECF No. 22).
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
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the
1
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 of the
Magistrate Judge which is incorporated herein by reference. The Commissioner’s final decision
is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further
administrative review as set forth in the Report. (ECF No. 19).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
June 8, 2015
Anderson, South Carolina
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?