Waddell v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 38

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court that this action is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 10/20/2014. (gnan )

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

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-2806-MGL-KDW
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND REVERSING AND REMANDING THIS ACTION
FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
This is a Social Security appeal in which Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision
of Defendant denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security
Income (SSI). Plaintiff is represented by excellent counsel. The matter is before the Court for
review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge
suggesting that this action be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Report was made
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
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 the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on September 30, 2014, and Defendant filed her reply
on October 17, 2014, informing the Court that she would not be filing any objections to the Report.
“[I]n 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)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to object waives
appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
Plaintiff’s alleged disability commenced in December 2009, and she applied for DIB and SSI
in February 2010. The Administrate Law Judge denied her claim and the Appeals Council declined
her request for review–thus making the ALJ’s denial of the claim Defendant’s final decision for
purposes of judicial review. Plaintiff’s purports that she is unable to work because of anxiety, panic
attacks, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, and agoraphobia.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment
of the Court that this action is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings as detailed
in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 20th day of October, 2014, in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
s/ Mary G. Lewis
MARY G. LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2