Orr v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court ACCEPTS the Report. Defendant's decision is therefore REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this order. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/8/2018. (gnan )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Michele W. Orr,
Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security Administration,
Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-02728-JMC
This matter is before the court on upon review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 23), filed on January 19, 2018, recommending that the
decision of the Commissioner (“Defendant”) be reversed, and this case be remanded to the
Commissioner for further proceedings necessary to develop and fully evaluate the evidentiary
record in this case as noted in the Report.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)-(3).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted for Carolyn
Colvin as the named defendant because she became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security
on January 23, 2017.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 23-1.)
Defendant gave notice that she would not be filing any objections to the Report. (ECF No. 26.)
Plaintiff also did not file any 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); see Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[t]he Supreme
Court has authorized the waiver rule that we enforce. . . . ‘[A] court of appeals may adopt a rule
conditioning appeal, when taken from a district court judgment that adopts a magistrate's
recommendation, upon the filing of objections with the district court identifying those issues on
which further review is desired.’”) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (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. There is a lack of evidence as to the effect
that Plaintiff’s medication has on her, and further development of the evidentiary record could
have an impact upon the outcome of Plaintiff’s case as to her medication’s side effects as well as
her other arguments of error. For this reason, the court ACCEPTS the Report. Defendant’s
decision is therefore REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further
proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
February 8, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina
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?