Justice v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
14
ORDER RULING ON 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hendricks is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ordered that the Commissioner's decision is reversed and that the matter is remanded to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 01/22/2013. (egra, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
James William Justice,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of )
Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
Civil Action No.: 2:11-cv-03331-RBH
ORDER
Plaintiff James William Justice filed this appeal of the final decision of the Commissioner of
the Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claims for disability insurance benefits. This matter is now
before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Bruce Howe Hendricks, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court
reverse the Commissioner’s decision and remand the matter to the Commissioner under sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
In the
absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not
required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). 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 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated
by reference. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and that the matter is
REMANDED to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
January 22, 2013
Florence, 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?