Grant v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER ADOPTING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 19 Report and Recommendations, the Commissioner's decision is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC Sections 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) and case is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 3/14/2012. (ydav, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Pearl T. Grant
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Civil Action No. 3:10-3004-TLW-JRM
Plaintiff has brought this action to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the defendant,
Commissioner of Social Security, regarding her claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and
Supplemental Security Income. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge 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)(a), (D.S.C.).
In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Commissioner’s decision be reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and
1383(c)(3) and that the case be remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action as
outlined in the Report. The Report was filed on February 21, 2012. Defendant filed objections on
March 8, 2012.
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party
may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the
magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The
Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,
the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny
entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not
objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept,
reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
In light of this standard, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections
After a thorough review of the record, the Report, and Defendant’s objections in accordance
with the standard set forth above, and for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 19), Defendant’s objections
are OVERRULED (Doc. # 20), and the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) and this case is REMANDED to the
Commissioner for further administrative action as outlined in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
TERRY L. WOOTEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
March 14, 2012
Florence, South Carolina
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?