Cruell v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 35

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and that the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative action. Signed by Honorable G Ross Anderson, Jr on 1/28/2013. (gnan )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Arnold Bernard Cruell,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Michael J. Astrue,
)
Commissioner of Social Security
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )

C/A No.: 4:11-cv-02847-GRA-TER

ORDER
(Written Opinion)

This matter comes before the Court for a review of Magistrate Judge Thomas
E. Roger, III’s Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) of the District of South Carolina and filed on January
7, 2013. Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to Section 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 commissioner of Social Security, denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance
Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. See ECF No. 1. Magistrate Judge
Rogers recommends that the Commissioner’s decision 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. ECF No. 28. For the reasons stated
herein, the Court adopts the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
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 this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71
(1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions

Page 1 of 2

of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and this
Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may
also "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with
instructions." Id. However, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th. Cir. 1983). Additionally, any
party who fails to file timely, written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the
appellate court level. United States v. Schrone, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert
denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984).

Objections were due by January 25, 2013, and

neither party has filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation.
After reviewing the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and
relevant case law, this Court finds that the Report and Recommendation applies
sound legal principles to this case. Therefore, the Court adopts it in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is
REVERSED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and that the case is
REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative action as set forth in the
Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 28, 2013
Anderson, South Carolina
Page 2 of 2