Luther v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 23

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF #20) and orders that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed and this case is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings as set forth in the Report. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/6/2020. (vdru, )

2:19-cv-01212-BHH

Date Filed 08/06/20

Entry Number 23

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Philip Tilden Luther,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
Andrew M. Saul,
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant. )
________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 2:19-1212-BHH

ORDER

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social
s claim for disability insurance benefits. The
record includes the report and recommendation
Judge, which was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.). In the Report, which was filed on July 29, 2020, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that the Court revers
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remand the case to the Commissioner for further
consideration as set forth in the Report. In a notice filed on July 31, 2020, Defendant
informed the Court that he will not be filing obj
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole

2:19-cv-01212-BHH

Date Filed 08/06/20

Entry Number 23

Page 2 of 2

or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (sta
timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must
there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. Finding none, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 20).
Therefore, it is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is
reversed and this case is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings as set
forth in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
August 6, 2020
Charleston, South Carolina

2