Tyler v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 22

ORDER RULING ON 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) and remands the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this decision. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 09/12/2016. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Olanda Tyler,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
Commissioner of Social Security
)
Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-04755-JMC

Plaintiff,

ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of United States Magistrate Judge Mary
Gordon Baker’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), filed on August 1, 2016 (ECF No. 18),
recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”)
denying Olanda Tyler’s (“Plaintiff”) claims for a period of disability and disability benefits
(“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) be remanded. The Report sets forth the
relevant facts and legal standards which this court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes
only a recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive weight. See Mathews v. Weber,
423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
court. Id. The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the
Report to which specific objections are made. Id.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report by August 18,
2016. (See ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff did not file any objections. The Commissioner filed a Notice of

1

Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on August 18,
2012. (ECF No. 20.)
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983) (explaining that a judge may “accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part [a]
[M]agistrate [Judge’s] report,” without explanation, when no objections are filed by the
challenging party). Rather, “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a [D]istrict [C]ourt 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and does not contain any clear error.
The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) and
REMANDS the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
September 12, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

2