Caldwell v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 20

OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: 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. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 1/4/2017. (gnan )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Grenoble Keith Caldwell,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin,
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant. )
________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 4:15-4311-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
Grenoble Keith Caldwell (“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 and Supplemental Security Income.
On December 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which he recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be
reversed and that this matter be remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings. (ECF No. 15.) On December 30,
2016, the Commissioner filed “Defendant’s Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.” (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff did not file
objections, and the time for doing so expired on January 3, 2017.
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 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 as may be
necessary consistent with this Order and the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
January 4, 2017
Greenville, South Carolina