Tant v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 25

OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 17 Report and Recommendation and remanding the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable Donald C. Coggins, Jr. on 3/9/2018. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jerri Ann Tant,

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

C/A No. 1:17-733-DCC

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3) seeking
judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter was referred
to a United States Magistrate Judge for pre-trial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) on January 8, 2018, recommending that the Court reverse and
remand the case for further consideration by the Commissioner. ECF No. 17. Neither party filed
objections to the Report.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71. The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the
Court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 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) (“[I]n the absence of a timely
filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy
1

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 to 1983 addition)).
Having reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of
the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and adopts the Report by reference in this
Order. Therefore, the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
March 9, 2018
Spartanburg, South Carolina

2