Bradberry v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 24

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 20 Report and Recommendation. This case is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration as set forth herein and in the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 2/5/2018. (vdru, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Angie M. Bradberry,

)
) C/A No. 2:16-3352-MBS
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ORDER
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Plaintiff Angie M. Bradberry filed the within action on October 11, 2016, seeking judicial
review of a final decision of Defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration
denying Plaintiff’s claims for disability insurance benefits.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for pretrial handling. On January 18, 2018,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the case
be remanded because the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to reject the opinions of
Dr. Netherton, Plaintiff’s treating physician, is not supported by substantial evidence. The
Magistrate Judge declined to address Plaintiff’s other assertions of error, but recommended that the
ALJ consider the allegations on remand.

Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and

Recommendation. On January 31, 2018, the Commissioner filed a Notice of Not Filing Objections
to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo

determination of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is
made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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).
The court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. The court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by
reference. The case is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanded to
the Commissioner for further consideration as set forth herein and in the Report and
Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
February 5, 2018.

2