Pizarro v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts and incorporates the Report by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative action. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 3/29/2017. (gnan )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
C/A No. 5:16-1407-CMC
OPINION & ORDER
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits
(“DIB”). Plaintiff appealed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g). The matter is currently before the
court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of Magistrate Judge Kaymani D.
West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and
83.VII.02, et seq., D.S.C.
The Report, filed on March 14, 2017, recommends that the decision of the Commissioner
be reversed and remanded for further administrative action. ECF No. 13. On March 23, 2017,
Defendant filed notice that she would not file objections to the Report. ECF No. 15.
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 the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
The court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and
incorporates the Report by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, the decision of the
Commissioner is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
March 29, 2017
The clerk of the Court will enter a separate judgment pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 58.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?