Greer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 33

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS accepting 29 Report and Recommendations. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative action as outlined in 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
Joel B. Greer,

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

Civil Action No.: 8:10-2937-TLW-JDA

ORDER
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant, Commissioner of
Social Security, denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the
Magistrate Judge recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and that the
case be remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action consistent with the
recommendation, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. # 29). The
Commissioner filed objections on March 8, 2012. (Doc. # 31). The matter is now ripe for
review.
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 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).
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the record,
the Magistrate Judge’s analysis as found in the Report, and the Commissioner’s objections to the
Report. After careful review, the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report. (Doc. # 29).
For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner’s decision is
REVERSED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and the case is REMANDED to the
Commissioner for further administrative action as outlined in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge

March 14, 2012
Florence, South Carolina