Anosike v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 30

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #26) is ACCEPTED. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 8/22/2014. (gnan, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
EBERECHUKWU ANOSIKE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
)
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 4:13-cv-00813-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff Eberechukwu Anosike brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to
obtain judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s
(“Defendant”) final decision denying his claim 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, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), (D.S.C.).

In the Report, the

Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court reverse Defendant’s decision and remand it to
Defendant for further administrative action. (Doc. #26). Defendant filed a notice stating that she
will not submit objections to the Report, (Doc #28), and this matter is now ripe for decision.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to
which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections
to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a

case, “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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, a party’s failure to file specific written
objections to the Report waives the right to appellate review of that claim. See id. at 315-16.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report. Having found no clear error on the face of
the record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. #26) is ACCEPTED.

For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the

Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner
for further proceedings, as discussed in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
August 22, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina