Musgrove v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 30

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 23 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 J. Michelle Childs on 06/03/2016. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Blaine L. Musgrove, Jr.,

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

Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-02275-JMC
ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V.
Hodges’ Report and Recommendation (“Report”), filed on March 22, 2016 (ECF No. 23),
recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”)
denying Plaintiff’s claims for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) be reversed and remanded
for further proceedings. The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards which this
court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes
only a recommendation to this court, which 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 to which specific objections are made.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report by April 8, 2016.
(See ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff did not file any objections. The Commissioner filed a Notice of Not

1

Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on April 07, 2016.
(ECF No. 27.)
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, 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). Rather, “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 & Accident
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 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 23) and REVERSES the final decision of the
Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s claims for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and
REMANDS the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
June 3, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

2