Estes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 17

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 13 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the action for further administrative processing. Signed by Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 06/08/2017. (bshr, )

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

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

Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-03343-JMC
ORDER

This matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges’ Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 13), filed on May 23, 2017, recommending that the
Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) as the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by substantial
evidence.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The
court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which
specific objections are made.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 13).
Defendant replied, notifying the court that she would not be filing any objections. (ECF No. 14).
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199

1

(4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of
the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report
provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and does not contain clear error. The court
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13), and REVERSES
and REMANDS the Commissioner’s decision for further administrative processing pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
June 8, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

2