Flynn v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 27

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 20 Report and Recommendation, reversing the Commissioner's decision, and remanding for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 8/20/2014.(cahe, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
HENRY FLYNN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 5:13-cv-00597-DCN

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West’s Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) that this court reverse and remand Acting Commissioner
of Social Security Carolyn Colvin’s decision denying plaintiff’s application for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The Commissioner filed a brief
objection to the R&R.
This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the
magistrate judge’s R&R to which specific, written objections are made. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions
of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” (emphasis added)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (“[A] party may serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” (emphasis
added)). “Section 636(b)(1) does not countenance a form of generalized objection to
cover all issues addressed by the magistrate judge; it contemplates that a party’s objection
to a magistrate judge’s report be specific and particularized . . . .” United States v.
Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added); see also Page v. Lee, 337
F.3d 411, 416 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003) (“[P]etitioner’s failure to object to the magistrate
1

judge’s recommendation with the specificity required by [Rule 72(b)] is, standing alone,
a sufficient basis upon which to affirm the judgment of the district court . . . .”).
The Commissioner’s objection to the R&R consists entirely of the following:
For the reasons stated in the Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of the
Commissioner’s Decision, the Commissioner respectfully asks the Court
to reject the Report and Recommendation and affirm the administrative
decision. The Commissioner’s final decision is supported by substantial
evidence and should be affirmed.
Def.’s Objection 1. This general objection obviously runs afoul of Rule 72(b) and
§ 636(b)(1).
Based on the foregoing, the court, being satisfied that there is no clear error on the
face of the record, ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s R&R, REVERSES the
Commissioner’s decision, and REMANDS the case for further administrative
proceedings.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

DAVID C. NORTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
August 20, 2014
Charleston, South Carolina

2