Timms v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Filing 21

ORDER adopting 17 Report and Recommendations. The Defendant's objections are overruled and the Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 9/5/08. (jtho, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Pamela Timms, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Michael J. Astrue, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) Civil Action No. 6:07-1748-TLW-WMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Pamela Timms brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on June 25, 2007, to obtain judicial review of the final decision of Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. Plaintiff filed her brief on November 2, 2007. (Doc. # 11). Defendant filed his brief on December 17, 2007. (Doc. # 13). This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and

Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge William M. Catoe, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 83.VII.02 (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Commissioner's

decision "be reversed under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), with a remand of the cause to the Commissioner for further proceedings." On July 3, 2008, the defendant filed objections to the Report. (Doc. # 19). This Court is charged with reviewing the Magistrate's Report and the Petitioner's objections thereto. In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard: The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,

the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations. Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted). In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed, de novo, the Report, the objections thereto, and the remainder of the record, and has concluded that the Report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED (Doc. # 17) ; Defendant's objections are OVERRULED; and the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). IT IS SO ORDERED. S/ Terry L. Wooten Terry L. Wooten United States District Judge September 5, 2008 Florence, South Carolina