White v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report of the Magistrate Judge ECF No. 18 ), which is incorporated herein by reference. The Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative review as set forth in the Report. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/13/2018. (gnan )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-03627-TMC
Plaintiff, John White, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial
review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his
claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”)
pursuant to the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1). This matter is before the court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the United States Magistrate Judge, made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.). (ECF No.
18). The Report recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded pursuant
to sentence four of § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Report. (ECF No. 18).
Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) should
“explain how he considered and resolved inconsistencies or ambiguities in the evidence as required
by SSR 96-8p.” (ECF No. 18 at 24). 1 Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report. On February
8, 2018, the Commissioner filed a notice of her intent not to file any objections to the Report. (ECF
Because this issue alone subjected the case to be remanded back to the ALJ, the Magistrate Judge did not opine as
to Plaintiff’s further allegations of error but did instruct the ALJ to consider those allegations on remand and to, if
necessary, reevaluate Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity and take vocational expert testimony. (ECF No. 18 at
No. 20). However, Defendant does not concede that her administrative decision denying benefits
to Plaintiff was not substantially justified. (ECF No. 20).
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination
in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In
the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
Report. 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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 18), which is incorporated herein by reference. The Commissioner’s
final decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
for further administrative review as set forth in the Report. (ECF No. 18).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
February 13, 2018
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?