Footman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
30
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 27 Report and Recommendation.The Commissioners final decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative review as set forth in the Report. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 1/19/18. (jsmi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Levone Footman,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
)
Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )
Civil Action No. 6:16-cv-03361-TMC
ORDER
Plaintiff, Levone Footman, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1383(c)(3), seeking
judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
denying his claim for Supplementary Security Income (“SSI”) pursuant to the Social Security
Act. (ECF No. 1). This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) of the United States Magistrate Judge, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.). (ECF No. 27). The Report
recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Report. (ECF No. 27 at
19). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)
should reconsider the opinion of treating physician Dr. Gibbs and the additional allegations of
error as made by Plaintiff.1 (ECF No. 27 at 19). Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report.
On January 18, 2018, the Commissioner filed a notice of her intent not to file any objections to
1
The Magistrate Judge and this court decline to address claimant’s additional allegations of error since there is
sufficient basis for remand due to the failure to properly consider the opinion of Dr. Gibbs. The additional
allegations of error should be considered and addressed on remand. See Boone v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 203, 211 n. 19
(3rd Cir. 2003) (remanding on other grounds and declining to address claimant’s additional arguments).
the Report. (ECF No. 29). However, Defendant does not concede that her administrative decision
denying benefits to Plaintiff was not substantially justified. (ECF No. 29).
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 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).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 27), which is incorporated herein by reference. The Commissioner’s
final decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) for further administrative review as set forth in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
January 19, 2018
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?