Sapp v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
45
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 39 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 Donald C. Coggins, Jr. on 10/23/2018. (bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Nicole Taneka Sapp,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant. )
________________________________ )
C/A No. 1:17-2442-DCC
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial
review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits.
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 October 3, 2018, recommending that the Court reverse
the decision of the Commissioner and remand for further proceedings. ECF No. 14.
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 (1976).
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
1
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.’” (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 Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED
and the Court remands this matter to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
October 23, 2018
Spartanburg, South Carolina
2
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?