Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 22 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the action further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 07/17/2017. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
O’Dell Bill Thomas,
) C/A No. 1:16-2774-MBS
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security,
Plaintiff O’Dell Bill Thomas filed the within action on August 9, 2016, seeking judicial
review of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claims
for supplemental security income benefits.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pretrial handling. On June 26, 2017, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she determined that decision of the
administrative law judge (ALJ) (1) failed to incorporate into the residual functional capacity (RFC)
assessment limitations a medical opinion to which he accorded substantial weight; (2) failed to
comply with the provisions of SSR 96-6p in evaluating the opinion of the physician who prepared
a psychiatric review technique and Plaintiff’s RFC; (3) failed to present a proper hypothetical
question to the vocational expert (VE); and (4) failed to identify and resolve a conflict between the
VE’s testimony and Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The Magistrate Judge stated that she could
not determine whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial assistance. Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that the case be remanded for further administrative action. Plaintiff
filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. On July 10, 2017, the Commissioner filed
a Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is
made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge 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 case is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanded to
the Commissioner for further consideration as set forth herein and in the Report and
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
July 17, 2017
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?