Faison v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 1/4/12. (alew, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

Charles Faison,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)

vs.

)

Civil Action No. 6-10-23 75-RMG

)

Michale 1. Astrue, Commissioner
of Social Secuity,

)
)

ORDER

)

Defendant.

)
)

Plaintiff filed this action for judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g) and 1383(c)(3)
challenging the denial of claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. In accord with 28 U.S.c. § 636(b) and
Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., the matter was initially referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial
handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommended which recommended that
the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded. The Magistrate Judge found
various legal deficiencies in the decision of the Commissioner, including a failure at the third
step of the sequential evaluation to properly address listed impairments 1.05 and 9.08, the failure
to appropriately weigh the opinions of Plaintiff s treating and examining physicians, a failure to
appropriately articulate the basis for the credibility finding, and a failure to comply with the
requirements of SSR 00-4p in making the residual functional capacity determination. (Dkt. No.
17 at 11-21). The Commissioner advised the Court that he will not file objections to the Report

-1­

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. No. 18).
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 charge with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is
made, and may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(l).
The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the notice of the Defendant
that it does not object to the recommendation for reversal and remand, and the applicable law,
hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, REVERSES the
decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and REMANDS
the case to the Commissioner for further action consistent with this Order.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark
United States District Judge

Charleston, South Carolina
January if, 2012

-2­