Street v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 27

ORDER RULING ON 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference. The Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative review. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 3/8/2018. (gnan )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Cindy Sue Street,
) C/A No. 5:16-cv-3981-DCC
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ORDER
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social )
Security,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final
decision on the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her claim for Disability
Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Kaymani D. West for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On
January 10, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Commissioner’s
decision be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) for further proceedings.
ECF No. 22. On January 24, 2018, the Commissioner filed notice that she would not file objections.
ECF No. 24. Plaintiff has filed no objections, and the time to do so has lapsed.
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.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by

the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See U.S.C.
§ 636(b). The Court will review the Report 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 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.” (citation omitted)).
After a careful and thorough review of the record under the appropriate standards, as set forth
above, the Court adopts the Report, which is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, the
Commissioner’s final decision is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative review as set forth in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
March 8, 2018
Spartanburg, South Carolina