Hartley v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for a 11 sentence six remand is denied. It is further ORDERED that this case is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Appeals Council. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 6/13/2011. (gnan )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Deborah A. Hartley,
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner
of Social Security,
C.A. No. 4:10-290-HMH-TER
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with
this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with
making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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 with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006).
The parties filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of
objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court adopts Magistrate Judge Rogers’ Report and Recommendation and incorporates it
herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a sentence six remand, docket number 11, is
denied. It is further
ORDERED that this case is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to
the Appeals Council to make findings as set forth in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
June 13, 2011
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?