Johnson v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 33

OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits is reversed and the action is remanded for further administrative action. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 9/12/2014. (gnan )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Martha Johnson,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
1
Carolyn W. Colvin,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant. )
________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 4:13-601-BHH

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)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. Plaintiff Martha
Johnson (“Plaintiff”), brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”).
On August 7, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
in which he recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded
for further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiff filed no objections to the
Report and Recommendation. On August 20, 2014, the Commissioner filed “Defendant’s
Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge.”
(ECF No. 30.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.

1

The

Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 14,
2013. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin should be
substituted for Michael J. Astrue as Defendant in this lawsuit.

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 carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge.

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and

incorporates it herein by reference. The decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits is
reversed and the action is remanded for further administrative action consistent with this
order and the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
September 12, 2014
Greenville, South Carolina