Palma v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
25
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 20 Report and Recommendation,, Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 8/15/18. (jsmi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Quirina S. Palma,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Commissioner of Social Security
)
Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Civil Action No.: 6:17-cv-01723-JMC
ORDER
This matter is before the court for review of Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald’s
(“Magistrate Judge”) Report and Recommendation (“Report”) filed on July 23, 2018 (ECF No.
20). The Report addresses Plaintiff Quirina S. Palma’s (“Plaintiff”) claim for disability benefits
and recommends that the court reverse the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
Administration (“the Commissioner”). (ECF No. 20 at 14.) For the reasons herein, the court
ACCEPTS the Report, REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner, and REMANDS
Plaintiff’s claim for additional administrative action.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards which this court incorporates
herein without a full recitation. (ECF No. 20.) However, as brief background, the Administrative
Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that Plaintiff was not disabled for purposes of the Social Security
Act (“the Act”) on October 15, 2015. (Id. at 1.) Although the ALJ found that “[P]laintiff’s spinal
degenerative disease with radiculopathy (or degenerative disc disease) was severe,” the ALJ
concluded that Plaintiff could still perform medium work. (Id. at 12-13.) Plaintiff requested the
Appeals Council (“the Council”) to review the ALJ’s decision and was denied that request on April
28, 2017. (Id. at 2.) Thus, the ALJ’s decision is the final decision of the Commissioner. Moody v.
Chater, 1995 WL 627714, at *1 (4th Cir. Oct. 26, 1995) (stating that an ALJ’s decision was the
final decision of the Commissioner when the Council denied a request for review); Higginbotham
v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 332, 336 (5th Cir. 2005) (holding that the Commissioner’s “final decision”
includes when the Council denies a request for review). Plaintiff filed the instant action on June
30, 2017. (ECF No. 1.)
In the Report, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the ALJ committed reversible error by
failing to explain why there was no weight given to a prior finding of Plaintiff’s medical condition
by a different ALJ. (ECF No. 20 at 13.) More specifically, the Magistrate Judge’s Report notes
that the court “cannot find that . . . substantial evidence exists” and that the ALJ’s findings were
reached through the incorrect legal standard. (Id.) On this basis, the Report recommended that the
court reverse the decision of the Commissioner and remand the case for further administrative
proceedings. (Id. at 14.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 only makes a
recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no presumptive weight. See Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final determination remains
with the court. Id. at 271. As such, the court is charged with making de novo determinations of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Thus, 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).
III. DISCUSSION
The parties were apprised of their opportunity to file objections to the Report on July 23,
2018. (ECF No. 20.) On August 1, 2018, the Commissioner notified the court that there would be
no objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. (ECF No. 22.) Similarly, Plaintiff has not filed
any objection to the Report.
In the absence of specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the court is not
required to give any explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). Furthermore, a 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 court based upon such
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the instant case, the court has carefully examined the
findings of the Report and concludes that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial
evidence as it relates to Plaintiff’s disability. (ECF No. 20 at 21.) Since no specific objections
were filed by either party, the court adopts the Report herein. Camby, 718 F.2d at 199.
IV. CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court ACCEPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20) and incorporates it herein. The
Commissioner’s decision is therefore REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative
action in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
August 15, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina
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?