Coakley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
25
ORDER adopting 22 Report and Recommendation. It is the judgment of the Court this matter is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further administrative action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 12/19/2016.(abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
SHARON GRANT COAKLEY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Administrator of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 8:15-02788-MGL-JDA
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND REVERSING AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
This is a Social Security appeal in which Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision
of Defendant denying her claims for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security
income (SSI). The parties are represented by excellent counsel. The matter is before the Court
for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge
suggesting to the Court this matter be reversed and remanded for further administrative action
under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on November 29, 2016. ECF No. 22. Defendant
filed a Reply on December 16, 2016, stating she would decline filing objections to the Report.
ECF No. 23. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover,
a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.
1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard
set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the
judgment of the Court this matter is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further administrative
action under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 19th day of December 2016 in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?