Stevens v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 30

OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 26 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the matter for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 05/20/2016. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Thomas Christopher Stevens,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin,
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant. )
________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 1:15-cv-2823-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 Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. Plaintiff
Thomas Christopher Stevens (“Plaintiff”) brought this action seeking judicial review of
the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying
Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”).
On April 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
in which she recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and
remanded for further administrative action. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff filed no objections to
the Report and Recommendation. On May 6, 2016, the Commissioner filed
“Defendant’s Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge.” (ECF No. 28.)
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
May 20, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina