Ivey v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 18

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 13] and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the Commissioner's final decision is reversed and remanded for additional administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 5/8/2017. (gnan)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Alvin Ivey,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill, Commissioner of
)
Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-02075-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III’s
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), filed on March 13, 2017 (ECF No. 13), recommending
that the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) decision denying Plaintiff’s claim
for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
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, which 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.
The parties were notified of their right to file objections. (ECF No. 13). On March 22,
2017, the Commissioner filed her Reply to the Report (ECF No. 15) providing notice that the
agency will not file objections to the Report.

1

In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 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). Instead, the court 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
and Recommendation results in a party’s waiver of a 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).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law, and there is no clear error. The court
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) and incorporates it
herein by reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the Commissioner’s final decision is
reversed and remanded for additional administrative proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
May 8, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

2