Felty v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: This court finds that the Report is proper. The Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded for further review as set out in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and this order. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 9/3/2014. (gnan )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kelli Litchfield Felty,
Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of
C/A No. 4:13-1782-JFA-TER
The plaintiff, Kelli Litchfield Felty, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(Commissioner) denying her claim for disability insurance benefits (DIB).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation wherein he opines that the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed
and remanded for further administrative action. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant
facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The parties were advised of their right to submit objections to the Report and
Recommendation which was filed on July 28, 2014. The Commissioner has responded
indicating that it will not file objections to the Report and Recommendation, and noting that
The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. 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 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 the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
it does not concede that the Commissioner’s decision was not substantially justified.
It is the duty of the ALJ reviewing the case, and not the responsibility of the courts,
to make findings of fact and resolve conflicts in the evidence. This court’s scope of review
is limited to the determination of whether the findings of the Commissioner are supported
by substantial evidence taking the record as a whole, Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th
Cir. 1996), and whether the correct law was applied, Walls v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 287, 290
(4th Cir. 2002).
After a careful review of the record, including the findings of the ALJ, the briefs from
the plaintiff and the Commissioner, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court finds that
the Report is proper and it is adopted and incorporated herein by reference.
Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is reversed and remanded for further
review as set out in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 3, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge
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?