Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 21

ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendation. The court reverses and remands the Commissioner's decision for further administrative processing pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 7/6/17. (jtho, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Carol Lethea Williams,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 6:16-cv-01010-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon review of Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald’s
Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 18), filed on June 22, 2017, recommending
that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded for further administrative
proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court, which 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 to
which specific objections are made. Diamond v. Colonial Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005).
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 18.)
Defendant replied, notifying the court that she would not be filing any objections. (ECF No. 20.)
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,

1

199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of
the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the
Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law and does not contain clear error. The
court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18), and
REVERSES and REMANDS the Commissioner’s decision for further administrative
processing pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
July 6, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina

2