Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 19

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Report of Magistrate Judge Hendricks is accepted. The decision of the Commissioner is reversed and the case is remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) for further action consistent with the directions in the Report. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 08/05/2011. (jbry, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Darlene Yvette Taylor,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Michael J. Astrue,
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

C/A No. 2:10-1157-CMC

OPINION & ORDER

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). Plaintiff appealed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g). The
matter is currently before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of
Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02, et seq., D.S.C.
The Report, filed on July 18, 2011, recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be
reversed and the case remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action. Dkt. No. 16.
On August 3, 2011, the Commissioner notified the court that he would not file objections to the
Report. Dkt. No. 17.
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

to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court reviews only for clear
error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note).
In light of the Commissioner’s notice that he will not file objections to the Report, the court
has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and incorporates the Report by reference. For
the reasons set forth therein, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed and the case is remanded
to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) for further action consistent
with the directions in the Report as here incorporated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
August 5, 2011

2