Ladson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 34

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 31 Report and Recommendation as set out. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 7/25/14. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Audrey Lucille Ladson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,1
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 6:13-cv-484-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Audrey Lucille Ladson (“Plaintiff”) filed this appeal of the final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and
Supplemental Security Income. This matter is now 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) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. The
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision and remand the
matter for further proceedings.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this
Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

1

Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 14, 2013.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Carolyn W. Colvin is substituted for Commissioner Michael J.
Astrue as the Defendant in this lawsuit.

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.2 In the absence of
objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to
give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). 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 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated
by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and
the matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
July 25, 2014
Florence, South Carolina

2

On July 22, 2014, the Defendant specifically filed a notice that it would not file objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. See Notice, ECF No. 32 at 1.
2