Rollins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON 21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of Magistrate Judge Hendricks for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and inc orporates the Report by reference. The decision of the Commissioner is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative action. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 06/14/2012. (egra, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Stacy Davis, surviving spouse of
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security,
C/A No. 2:11-1382-CMC-BHH
OPINION & ORDER
Through this action, Plaintiff1 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 H. 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 May 24, 2012, recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be
reversed and remanded for further administrative action. Dkt. No. 21. On June 11, 2012, Defendant
filed notice that he would not file objections to the Report. Dkt. No. 22.
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
As explained in the Report and Recommendation, the action was originally brought by the
claimant, Linda Rollins. Stacy Davis was substituted as Plaintiff on November 30, 2011, after
Mrs. Rollins’ death.
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
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
remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
June 14, 2012
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?