Parker v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 21

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 16 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 09/13/2017. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
William Glenn Parker,
Plaintiff,
v.
Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-3852-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, William Glenn Parker, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”)1 denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under the Social
Security Act (“SSA”). (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before
the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that
the court reverse the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
and remand the action for further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 16). Plaintiff has not
filed any objections to the Report, and on August 31, 2017, the Commissioner filed a notice of
her intent not to file any objections to the Report. (ECF No. 18).

Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on
January 27, 2017. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Berryhill should be substituted for Carolyn
W. Colvin as the defendant in this action.
1

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
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).
Having conducted the required review, the court finds no clear error. Therefore, the
court adopts the Report and its recommended disposition. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s
final decision is REVERSED and the action is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceeding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
September 13, 2017