Davis vs Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 28

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 24 Report and Recommendation. The Commissioners motion to remand is GRANTED, and the Commissioners final decision is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this order and the Report. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/19/13. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Lashaun Monique Davis,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Commissioner of Social Security,1
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:12-3631-TMC
ORDER

The plaintiff, Lashaun Monique Davis, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and
1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying her claim for Supplemental Security Income benefits under the
Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before
the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that
the Commissioner’s motion to remand (ECF No. 23) be granted, the Commissioner’s decision be
reversed, and the case be remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to the
Commissioner for further administrative action consistent with the Report. (ECF No. 24).
Neither party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the
1

Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on
February 14, 2012. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.25(d), Colvin should be substituted for Michael J.
Astrue.

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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report and
incorporates it herein by reference. The Commissioner’s motion to remand (ECF No. 23) is
GRANTED, and the Commissioner’s final decision is reversed and remanded pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with this order and the
Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
November 19, 2013