Isaacs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 25

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 21 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the action for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable Timothy M. Cain on 10/12/2016. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION

Cathy Isaacs,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-4420-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Cathy Isaacs brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), seeking judicial
review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her
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 Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.). (ECF No.
21). In her Report, the magistrate judge recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be
reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent
with the Report. Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report, and on October 12, 2016,
the Commissioner filed a notice of her intent not to file any objections to the Report. (ECF No.
24).
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 (ECF No. 21) 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge

October 12, 2016
Anderson, South Carolina

2