Rambert v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration et al

Filing 30

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 25 Report and Recommendation, reversing the action and remanding under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative action consistent with this order and the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 2/25/14. (alew, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Sherry Charlene Rambert,

) Civil Action No.:6:12-2790-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________ )
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. Plaintiff Sherry
Charlene Rambert (“Plaintiff”) brought this action seeking judicial review of the final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim
for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”).
On February 7, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
in which he determined that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial
evidence. (ECF No. 25). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the case
be remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to
consider relevant evidence of the longitudinal picture regarding Plaintiff’s activities of daily
living; to consider relevant evidence of the longitudinal picture regarding Plaintiff’s social
functioning; and to consider relevant evidence of the longitudinal picture regarding
Plaintiff’s episodes of decompensation. (ECF No. 25 at 19-23). Plaintiff filed no objections
to the to the Report and Recommendation. On February 24, 2014, the Commissioner filed
“Defendant’s Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge.” (ECF No. 28.)
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 him with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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.” Diamond
v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.2005).
The court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge.

The court adopts the Report and Recommendation and

incorporates it herein by reference. The decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits is
reversed and the action is remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further
administrative action consistent with this order and the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
February 25, 2014
Spartanburg, South Carolina