Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 23

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 19 Report and Recommendation; the Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 5/22/18. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Larry Williams,
Plaintiff,
v.
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 6:17-cv-00370-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 19), filed on February 28, 2018, recommending that the
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance
Benefits be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court reviews de novo only those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which specific objections are filed. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).

1

The parties were notified of their right to file objections. On March 5, 2018, the
Commissioner filed her Reply to the Report (ECF No. 20), providing notice that the agency will
not file objections to the Report. In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See 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). Furthermore, failure to file specific written
objections to the Report and Recommendation 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); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States
v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a careful review of the Report and the record in this case, the court does not find clear
error and ACCEPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 19), and incorporates it herein.
Therefore the Commissioner’s decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
May 22, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

2