Murphy v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON 29 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 consistent with this order and the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 2/12/2018. (gnan, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
KEN A. MURPHY,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
Civil Action No.: 4:16-03351-MGL
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 Ken A. Murphy
(“Plaintiff”), brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability
On January 26, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in
which he recommended the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded for further
ECF No. 29.
Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and
Recommendation. On February 8, 2018, the Commissioner filed “Defendant’s Notice of Not
Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge.” ECF No. 31.
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 consistent with this order and the Report and
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 12, 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?