Letbetter v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 30

OPINION AND ORDER accepting the 27 Report and Recommendation and the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.§ 405(g) for further administrative action. Signed by Honorable Jacquelyn D Austin on 04/15/2024.(jens)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Rosa Ledbetter,
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case 6:23-cv-02312-JDA

OPINION AND ORDER

Rosa Ledbetter brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3)
to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying her claim for disability insurance benefits.

[Doc. 1.]

In

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule (D.S.C.) 73.02(B)(2)(a),
this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pretrial disposition. On March 18, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Commissioner’s decision be
reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and the case remanded for
further administrative action. [Doc. 27.] The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the
procedures and requirements for filing objections and the serious consequences if they
failed to do so. [Id. at 11.] The parties have not filed objections and the time to do so has
lapsed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions
of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the Court may accept, reject,
or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of
objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and
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).
After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this
case in accordance with the above standard, the Court finds no clear error, accepts the
Report, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, the decision is
REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) for further administrative action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin
United States District Judge
April 15, 2024
Greenville, South Carolina

2