Proctor v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 31

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, the Report and Recommendation 27 is ACCEPTED. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on November 20, 2012. (cwil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Johnny L. Proctor,

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

Civil Action No. 3:11-2139-TLW-JRM

ORDER
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant, Commissioner of
Social Security, denying his claim 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 decision of
the Commissioner be reversed and that the case be remanded to the Commissioner for further
administrative action consistent with the recommendation, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). (Doc. # 27). The Commissioner has filed a notice that he will not file
objections to the Report. (Doc. # 30).
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. §
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.
For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 27). The Commissioner’s
decision is REVERSED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) and the case
is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative action as outlined in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge

November 20, 2012
Florence, South Carolina