Earles v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
15
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 13 Report and Recommendation,, Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 12/3/18. (jsmi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
TINA W. EARLES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17-3045-MGL
§
§
§
§
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
REVERSING DEFENDANT’S DECISION, AND REMANDING THE CASE TO HER
FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
This is a Social Security appeal in which Plaintiff Tina W. Earles seeks judicial review of
the final decision of Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill (Berryhill) denying her claims for Disability
Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income Benefits. The matter is before the Court for
review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge
suggesting Berryhill’s decision be reversed and the case be remanded to her for further
administrative proceedings. The Magistrate Judge filed the Report in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 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 the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on November 19, 2018, and Berryhill filed a reply on
December 3, 2018, stating she would not be filing any objections to the Report. “[I]n 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)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to object waives
appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment
of the Court Berryhill’s decision is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to her for further
administrative proceedings as set forth in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 3rd day of December, 2018, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?