Washington v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
22
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 18 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the action for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 06/23/2015. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
William Howard Washington,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.: 1:14-cv-2415-BHH
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02 for the District of South
Carolina. The plaintiff William Howard Washington (“the plaintiff”), brought this action
seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying the plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits.
On June 1, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in
which he recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded for
further administrative action. (ECF No. 18.) On June 18, 2015, the Commissioner filed
“Defendant’s Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge.” (ECF No. 20.)
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 him with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In 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).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge.
The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and
incorporates it herein by reference. The decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits is
reversed and the action is remanded for further administrative action consistent with this
order and the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
June 23, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina
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?