Heeman v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 40

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further action. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 7/17/2012. (gnan )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION

Kimberly Ann Heeman,
Plaintiff,
v.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 5:10-3232-TMC

OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of a
final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying her claim
for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under the Social Security Act (the
"Act"). This matter is before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report"), filed on June 6, 2012. (Dkt. # 35). In the Report, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and
remanded for further administrative action. Defendant filed objections to the Report on
June 25, 2012, and Plaintiff filed a reply to the Commissioner’s objections on July 11, 2012.
(Dkt. # 37 and 38). This matter is now ripe for review.
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 light of this standard, the court has reviewed, de novo, the Report in conjunction with
the Commissioner’s objections. The court agrees with the analysis and conclusions of the

Magistrate Judge and finds the Commissioner’s objections provide no basis for the court
to deviate from the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition. Therefore, for the
reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the court adopts the Report of the Magistrate
Judge. Accordingly, the Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED and REMANDED
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further action consistent with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
July 17, 2012
Greenville, South Carolina

2