Whitfield v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 17

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 13 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the matter for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 07/10/2015. (bshr, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Crystal Suzanne Whitfield,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Commissioner of the
)
Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant,
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No.: 1:14-cv-03352-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Crystal Suzanne Whitfield seeks judicial review of a final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying her claim for disability insurance
benefits. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of
United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge

recommends the Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision and remand for further administrative
proceedings based on the administrative law judge’s (1) failure to properly apply the factors set
forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), specifically the supportability and consistency factors; and (2)
inadequate consideration of the opinion evidence concerning Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity.
R & R at 1, 27-29.
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 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 R & R 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R.1 In the absence of objections to the R & R,
the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only
for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court
need not conduct 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’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the R & R of the Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 13] is adopted and incorporated by
reference. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED
and that this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, SC
July 10, 2015

1

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

Defendant filed a notice stating she would not file objections to the R & R. See ECF No. 15.

2