Sutherland v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
18
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 14 Report and Recommendation. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and the Court REMANDS this matter to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 11/17/2022. (tsim, )
2:21-cv-03975-DCC
Date Filed 11/17/22
Entry Number 18
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
David Sutherland,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Commissioner of Social Security
)
Administration,
)
)
Defendant. )
________________________________ )
C/A No. 2:21-cv-03975-DCC
ORDER
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking
judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying his claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental
Security Income. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02
(D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pre-trial
handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) on
October 26, 2022, recommending that the Court reverse the decision of the
Commissioner and remand for further proceedings. ECF No. 14. Neither party filed
objections to the Report. 1
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976).
The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the
The Commissioner filed a Reply to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, indicating the
Social Security Administration does not intend to file any objections. ECF No. 15.
1
2:21-cv-03975-DCC
Date Filed 11/17/22
Entry Number 18
Page 2 of 2
Report that have been specifically objected to, and the Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[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.’” (citation omitted)).
Upon review of the record, the applicable law, and the findings and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and ADOPTS
the Report.
Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and the Court
REMANDS this matter to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
November 17, 2022
Spartanburg, South Carolina
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?