Pearson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and granting 17 MOTION to Remand Pursuant to Sentence Six of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). The Court accepts Magistrate Judge Hendricks's Report and Recommendation. The Commissioner 's motion is granted. Furthermore, the case is remanded under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. §§405(g) and 1381(c)(3), for a consideration of the propriety of reopening the plaintiff's prior disability and social security income claims and, to the extent reopened, a resolution of the same. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 02/25/2014. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
William L. Pearson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 2:13-cv-01134-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [ ECF No. 24], filed on February 4, 2014, recommending that the
Commissioner’s Motion to Remand [ECF No. 17] should be granted and the case remanded under
sentence six of 42 U.S.C. §§405(g) and 1381(c)(3), for a consideration of the propriety of reopening
the plaintiff’s prior disability and social security income claims and, to the extent reopened, a
resolution of the same. The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards which this court
incorporates herein without a recitation.
The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. 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 objections are made, and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, this
1

court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report and
Recommendation results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District
Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th
Cir. 1984).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds the magistrate judge’s
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case. The court ACCEPTS
the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 24] and incorporates it herein by
reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the Commissioner's motion is GRANTED.
Furthermore, the case is REMANDED under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. §§405(g) and 1381(c)(3),
for a consideration of the propriety of reopening the plaintiff's prior disability and social security
income claims and, to the extent reopened, a resolution of the same.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
February 25, 2014
Greenville, South Carolina

2