Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
25
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 23 Report and Recommendation,, Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 2/25/19. (jsmi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
JOEL JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17-3306-MGL
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND REVERSING AND REMANDING DEFENDANT’S FINAL DECISION
This is a Social Security appeal in which Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision
of Defendant denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). The matter is before the
Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge
suggesting to the Court Defendant’s final decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim for DIB be reversed and
remanded for further proceedings as set forth within the Report. The Report was made 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 February 19, 2019, and Defendant filed her reply
to the Report on February 25, 2019, stating she would not be filing any objections. “[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 Defendant’s final decision to deny Plaintiff’s claim for DIB is REVERSED AND
REMANDED for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 25th day of February, 2019, 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?