Dewitt v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 28

ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 25 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding the action for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 03/15/2013. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Brenda Darlene Dewitt,
Plaintiff,
v.
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
______________________________

) Civil Action No.: 3:11-cv-03395-MGL
)
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)

Through this action, Brenda Darlene Dewitt (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review of the
final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her claim
for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey for pretrial handling.
On February 22, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in
which he determined that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial
evidence. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the case be remanded
to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further
administrative proceedings. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge indicated that this action
should be remanded to the Commissioner for a determination of Plaintiff’s Residual
Functional Capacity (“ RFC”), an evaluation of the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physician
in light of all of the evidence and applicable law, and a consideration of Plaintiff’s remaining
allegations of error. (ECF No. 25 at 15.) Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and
Recommendation. On March 11, 2013, the Commissioner filed a Notice of Not Filing

Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 26.)
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 the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which
specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to him with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In 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.” Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.2005).
The Court has reviewed the record in light of the Report and Recommendation and
concurs in the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons set forth herein
and in the Report and Recommendation, the decision of the Commissioner to deny
benefits is reversed and the action is remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) for further administrative action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
March 15, 2013
Spartanburg, South Carolina

-2-