Martins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
18
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 16 . The Commissioner's decision is reversed and the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 07/15/2019.(cpeg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
DOUGLAS JOHN MARTINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ANDREW SAUL,
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-cv-1664-MGL
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
REVERSING DEFENDANT’S DECISION, AND REMANDING THE CASE TO
DEFENDANT FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
This is a Social Security appeal in which Plaintiff Douglas John Martins (Martins) seeks
judicial review of the final decision of Defendant Andrew Saul (Saul) denying his claim for disability
insurance benefits. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Saul’s decision be reversed and the case
be remanded for further administrative proceedings as detailed in the Report. The Magistrate Judge
filed the Report 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 1, 2019, and Saul filed a reply on July 15,
2019, stating he 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 Saul’s decision is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further administrative
proceedings as set forth in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 15th day of July, 2019, in Columbia, South Carolina.
/s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER 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?