Piner v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 12 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 review. Signed by Honorable Timothy M. Cain on 10/18/2017. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-317-TMC
Plaintiff, Leonwood Piner, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and
1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. (ECF No. 1). This matter
is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the United States
Magistrate Judge, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.).
(ECF No. 12). The Report recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and
remanded pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the
Report. (ECF No. 12). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined that the Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to recognize or resolve a conflict between the Vocational Expert’s
testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles’ descriptions of identified jobs, and,
therefore, “substantial evidence does not support [the ALJ’s] citation of those jobs to meet the
Commissioner’s burden at step five” of the review process. (ECF No. 12 at 34). Plaintiff has not
filed any objections to the Report, and on October 12, 2017, the Commissioner filed a notice of
her intent not to file any objections to the Report. (ECF No. 13). However, Defendant does not
concede that her administrative decision denying benefits to Plaintiff was not substantially
justified. (ECF No. 13).
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
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, which is incorporated herein by reference. The Commissioner’s final decision
is REVERSED AND REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further
administrative review as set forth in the Report. (ECF No. 12).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
October 18, 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?