Kolb v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 22

OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 19 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the matter further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 02/08/2018. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
LISA JANE VELLUTO KOLB,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 1:17-01101-MGL

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. Plaintiff Lisa Jane Velluto Kolb
(“Plaintiff”), brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability
Insurance Benefits.
On January 23, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in
which she recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded for further
administrative proceedings.

ECF No. 19.

Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and

Recommendation. On February 6, 2018, the Commissioner filed “Defendant’s Notice of Not
Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge.” ECF No. 20.
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 the
court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court

may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge,
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein
by reference. The decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits is REVERSED and the action
is REMANDED for further administrative action consistent with this order and the Report and
Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 8, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

2