Oneill v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Report, (Doc. #20), is ACCEPTED. The Plaintiff's objections, (Doc. #22), are OVERRULED. This case is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative action. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 8/28/2014. (gnan )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
C/A No.: 4:13-cv-154-TLW
The plaintiff, Josette O’Neill (“Plaintiff”), brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Defendant”), denying Plaintiff’s claims for disability insurance benefits. This matter is before
the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United States
Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, (Doc. #20), to whom this case had previously been
assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2), DSC. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Commissioner’s
decision be remanded for further administrative action. The Defendant filed objections to the
Report on May 12, 2014. (Doc. #22). Plaintiff filed a response in support of the Report on May
29, 2014. (Doc. #25). The matter is now ripe for disposition.
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)
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report
and the objections. Based on this review, and after careful consideration of the record, the Court
is unable to determine whether the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to deny
benefits was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, for the reasons articulated by the
Magistrate Judge, the Report, (Doc. #20), is ACCEPTED. The Plaintiff’s objections, (Doc.
#22), are OVERRULED. This case is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further
administrative action in light of the analysis set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
August 28, 2014
Columbia, 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?