Daniels v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
ORDER adopting re 22 Report and Recommendation. It is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and this case is remanded to the Co mmissioner for further proceedings as set forth in the Report. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 1/8/2021. (sgri) (Main Document 26 replaced on 1/8/2021) (sgri). Modified on 1/8/2021 to replace document. (sgri)
Date Filed 01/08/21
Entry Number 26
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Andrew M. Saul,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Civil Action No.: 6:19-2792-BHH
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jacqueline Daniel’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint
filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social
Security’s final decision, which denied Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income benefits.
The record includes the report and
recommendation (“Report”) of a United States Magistrate Judge, which was made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.). In
the Report, which was filed on December 18, 2020, the Magistrate Judge recommends that
the Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) and remand the case to the Commissioner for further consideration as set forth in
the Report. In a notice filed on December 28, 2020, Defendant informed the Court that he
will not be filing objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
Date Filed 01/08/21
Entry Number 26
Page 2 of 2
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. Finding none, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 22).
Therefore, it is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is
reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and this case is remanded to the
Commissioner for further proceedings as set forth in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
January 8, 2021
Charleston, 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?