McComas v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 78

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 1/8/2015. (gnan )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Erica Lynn McComas,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 5:13-cv-1349-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Erica Lynn McComas (“Plaintiff”) filed this appeal of the final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits. This
matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of United
States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 73. In the R
& R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision and
remand the matter for further administrative proceedings. See id. at 22.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the R & R 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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Neither party has filed objections to the R & R.1 In the absence of objections to the R & R
of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for
clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need
not conduct 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’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the R & R of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and the matter is
REMANDED for further administrative proceedings as detailed in the R & R.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
January 8, 2015
Florence, South Carolina

1

On January 8, 2015, the Defendant specifically filed a notice that she would not file objections to
the R & R. See Notice, ECF No. 76 at 1.
2