Delesline v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 18 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 03/27/2017. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-2016-MGL
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND REVERSING AND REMANDING THE CASE TO DEFENDANT
FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
This is a Social Security appeal in which Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision
of Defendant denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits. The matter is before the Court
for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge
suggesting to the Court the case be reversed and remanded to Defendant for further administrative
proceedings. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02
for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on March 22, 2017, and Defendant filed her notice
she did not intend to file any objections to the Report on March 24, 2017. “[I]n 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)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to object waives
appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment
of the Court this case is REVERSED AND REMANDED to Defendant for further administrative
proceedings as set forth in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 27th day of March, 2017, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?