Bailey v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's Report (ECF No. 22). For the reasons set out in the Report, the Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 8/19/2014. (gnan )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Melissa Jean Bailey,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 4:13-cv-01353-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (the “Report”), (ECF No. 22), filed on July 31, 2014, recommending that the
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claims
for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) be reversed,
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and remanded to the Commissioner for
administrative action consistent with the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The Report sets forth
the relevant facts and legal standards which this court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The magistrate judge’s Report is 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
to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the magistrate judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
1

§ 636(b)(1).
Defendant does not intend to file objections to the Report. (See ECF No. 24.) Further,
Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge’s Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Furthermore,
failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to
appeal from the judgment of the district court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds that the magistrate judge’s
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant case. The court ADOPTS
the magistrate judge’s Report (ECF No. 22).

For the reasons set out in the Report, the

Commissioner’s final decision is REVERSED and REMANDED

for further proceedings

consistent with the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
August 19, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
2