Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 28

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 24 Report and Recommendations, granting 20 Motion to Remand, filed by Commissioner of Social Security. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 6/6/12. (alew, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Phyllis Davis,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Michael J. Astrue,
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

C/A No. 6:11-1752-CMC-KFM

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”) and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). 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 Kevin F. McDonald 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.
On April 4, 2012, the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) filed a motion to
remand this matter. Plaintiff did not respond to the Commissioner’s motion to remand. The Report,
filed on May 16, 2012, recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and
remanded for further administrative action because two of the exhibits in the administrative record
(Exhibits 18F and 19F) pertain to another individual with the same first name as Plaintiff but with
a different last name, date of birth, and social security number. Dkt. No. 24 at 2. No objections to
the Report have been filed and the time for doing so has passed.
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 administrative action consistent
with the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
June 6, 2012

2