Lanier v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 21

ORDER AND OPINION adopting 17 Report and Recommendation. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED so that the Commissioner may take administrative action. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 4/19/2017.(abuc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Charline Lanier, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Nancy A. Berryhill, ) Acting Commissioner of the ) Social Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-01901-JMC ORDER AND OPINION This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 17), filed on March 24, 2017. On June 10, 2016, Plaintiff Charline Lanier (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this case appealing a final administrative decision by then Acting Commissioner Carolyn Colvin (“the Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits.1 (ECF No. 1.) The Report recommends that the court reverse the decision of the Commissioner and remand the case for administrative action consistent with the recommendation, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405. (ECF No. 17 at 20). The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which this court incorporates herein without a recitation. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 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. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. 1 Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted for former Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as a Defendant in this lawsuit. 1 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, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The parties were notified of their right to file objections. On March 29, 2017, the Commissioner filed a response indicating that she would not be objecting to the Report. (ECF No. 19.) In the absence of objections to the Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Instead, the court 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 finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in the instant matter. The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED so that the Commissioner may take administrative action consistent with the Report. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court Judge April 19, 2017 Columbia, South Carolina 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?