Watson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
20
ORDER adopting 16 Report and Recommendation. The Commissioner's decision is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 7/9/2015.(abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
JEREMY WATSON,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
)
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )
Case No. 8:14-cv-01310-TLW
ORDER
Plaintiff Jeremy Watson brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and
§ 1383(c)(3) to obtain judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration’s (“Defendant”) final decision 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 was 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 this Court
reverse Defendant’s decision and remand the case for further administrative action. (Doc. #16).
Defendant filed a notice stating that she will not submit objections to the Report (Doc. #18), and
this matter is now ripe for decision.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to
which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections
to the Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a
case, “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.’”
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, a party’s failure to file specific written
objections to the Report waives the right to appellate review of that claim. See id. at 315-16.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report in accordance with this standard and
concludes that it accurately summarizes the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, it is
hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED.
(Doc. #16). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner’s decision is
REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings, as discussed in the
Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
July 9, 2015
Columbia, 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?