Weathers v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 22 Report and Recommendations. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and this case is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 9/21/2011.(aswi)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Mary L. Weathers,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Michael J. Astrue,
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 3:10-cv-272-TLW-JRM

ORDER
The plaintiff, Mary L. Weathers (“plaintiff”), brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the defendant, Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner” or “defendant”), denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits. This matter
is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United
States Magistrate Joseph R. McCrorey, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC. In the Report, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed pursuant to sentence four of
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and that the case be remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative
action. (Doc. # 22). On September 12, 2011, the Commissioner filed a reply to the Report,
indicating the Commissioner would not file objections to the Report. (Doc. # 23).
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. §
1

636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this
Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. It
is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 22). For the
reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED pursuant
to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and this case is remanded to the Commissioner for further
administrative action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
September 20, 2011
Florence, South Carolina

2