Dunlap v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration et al

Filing 21

ORDER RULING ON 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION It is the judgment of the Court that this matter is reversed under § 405(g) and remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the Report. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 01/31/2017. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER LEE DUNLAP,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-3165-MGL-MGB
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND REVERSING AND REMANDING THE MATTER FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
This is a Social Security appeal in which Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision
of Defendant denying his claims for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security
Income (SSI). The parties are represented by excellent counsel. The matter is before the Court for
review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge
suggesting to the Court this matter be reversed under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanded for further
administrative proceedings consistent with the Report. 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 January 17, 2017, and Defendant filed her reply
on January 31, 2017, stating that she would not be filing any objections to the Report. “[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 this matter is REVERSED under § 405(g) and REMANDED for further administrative
proceedings consistent with the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 31st day of January, 2017, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2