Horne v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
24
ORDER adopting 21 Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court REVERSES AND REMANDS the Commissioner's final decision for further administrative action. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 4/27/2017.(abuc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Scotty M. Horne,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting
)
Commissioner of the Social
)
Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)
Civil Action No.: 6:16-cv-00390-RBH
ORDER
Plaintiff Scotty M. Horne seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. The matter is before
the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) 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)(a) for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 21. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Court reverse and remand the Commissioner’s final decision for further
administrative action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). R & R at 21.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those
portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R.1 In the absence of objections to the R & R, the
Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error
in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. 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 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 and therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s R & R [ECF No. 21]. Accordingly,
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court REVERSES AND REMANDS the
Commissioner’s final decision for further administrative action consistent with the R & R.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
April 27, 2017
1
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
The Commissioner filed a notice stating she would not file objections to the R & R. See ECF No. 22.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?