Holland v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. It is the judgment of the Court that this case is hereby reversed and remanded to the defendant for further consideration. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 07/23/2015. (egra, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION DIANE P. HOLLAND, Plaintiff, vs. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-1184-MGL ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REVERSING AND REMANDING THE CASE TO DEFENDANT FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION This is a Social Security appeal in which Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of Defendant denying his claims for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court that the case be reversed and remanded to Defendant for further consideration. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 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 the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on July 6, 2015, and Defendant filed her notice that she did not intend to file any objections to the Report on July 23, 2015. “[I]n 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court that this case is hereby REVERSED AND REMANDED to Defendant for further consideration as set forth in the Report. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 23rd day of July, 2015, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary G. Lewis MARY G. LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?