Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS accepting 16 Report and Recommendations that the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and this case is remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action consistent with the Report. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 3/14/12. (awil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Rickey B. Jones,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Michael J. Astrue,
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 8:10-cv-2013-TLW-JDA

ORDER
The plaintiff, Rickey B. Jones (“plaintiff”), 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 defendant, Commissioner
of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “defendant”), denying his claims for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report
and Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin,
to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) and that the case be remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action
consistent with the Report. (Doc. # 16). The defendant filed objections to the Report. (Doc. # 18).
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party
may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of
the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination.
The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
1

or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,
the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and
recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny
entailed by the Court’s review of the Report thus depends on whether or not
objections have been filed, in either case the Court is free, after review, to accept,
reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. It
is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 16). For the
reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED pursuant
to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and this case is remanded to the Commissioner for further
administrative action consistent with the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
March 14, 2012
Florence, South Carolina

2