Samad v. Commissioner of Social Security, The

Filing 45

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 41 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 2/24/14. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Shahid Abdu Samad,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin,
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant. )
______________________________________ )

C/A No. 8:12-3486-JFA-JDA

ORDER

This is an action brought by the plaintiff pursuant to sections 405(g) and 1383(c)(3)
of the Social Security Act, as amended, to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying his claims
for Supplemental Security Income.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed
and remanded for administrative action. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge opines that
remand is required so that a Vocational Expert (VE) can be called to address proper
hypotheticals which include all of the plaintiff’s impairments.

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. 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 the court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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 to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. The Commissioner filed a notice with the Clerk indicating that she would
not be filing objections to the Report which recommends remand. In the absence of specific
objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any
explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th
Cir. 1983).
After a careful review of the record, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s Report
provides an accurate summary of the facts in the instant case and that the conclusions are
proper. Thus, the Magistrate Judge’s findings are hereby specifically incorporated herein by
reference.
Accordingly, the Commissioner’s decision is reversed pursuant to sentence four of
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and this action is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings
as stated herein and in the Magistrate Judge’s Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 24, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2