Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 26

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 case to the Commissioner for further administrative action. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 08/09/2017. (bshr, )

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

Sarah Jackson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-3220-BHH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Sarah Jackson’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social
Security’s final decision, which denied Plaintiff’s claim for supplemental security income.
The record includes the report and recommendation (“Report”) of a United States
Magistrate Judge, which was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.). In the Report, which was filed on July 27, 2017, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remand the case to the Commissioner
for further administrative action as set forth in the Report. In a notice filed on August 9,
2017, Defendant informed the Court that she will not be filing objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 only of those portions of the Report to

which specific objections are 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 the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. Finding none, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 23).
Therefore, it is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is
reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and this case is remanded to
the Commissioner for further administrative action as set forth in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
August 9, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

2