Holley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 25

ORDER adopting 22 Report and Recommendation. It is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and this case is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 9/22/2017.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of the
)
Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________)
Tammy L. Holley,

Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-2845-BHH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Tammy L. Holley’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social
Security’s final decision, which denied Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income. The record includes the report and recommendation (“Report”)
of a United States Magistrate Judge, which was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C. In the Report, which was filed on
September 18, 2017, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court reverse the
Commissioner’s decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remand the
case to the Commissioner for further administrative action as set forth in the Report. In a
notice filed on September 19, 2017, Defendant informed the Court that she will not be filing
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report.
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 (1976). The Court

is charged with making a de novo determination only 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 recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge
with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court
reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident 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 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.’”) (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error.
Finding none, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 22). Therefore,
it is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed pursuant
to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and this case is remanded to the Commissioner for
further administrative action as set forth in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
September 22, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

2