Safa v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 35

OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits is reversed and the action is remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative action. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 2/10/2014. (gnan )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Nurah Rashida Safa,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 5:12-1252-MGL

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, 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 Nurah
Rashida Safa, (“Plaintiff”) brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability
Insurance Benefits (“DIB”).
On January 21, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
concluding that the Commissioner’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence.
(ECF No. 30 at 13). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the case be
reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings to
consider the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Elizabeth Leonard, and Plaintiff’s
other treating and examining professionals. Id. at 14.

On February 7, 2014, the

Commissioner filed “Defendant’s Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge.” (ECF No. 32).
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 under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further
administrative action consistent with this order and the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
February 10, 2014
Spartanburg, South Carolina