Helton v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 20

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting 16 Report and Recommendation, reversing the Defendant's decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Remanding the case for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 2/1/18. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
James Helton,

)
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill,
)
1
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.: 8:16-cv-03640-JMC
ORDER

This matter is before the court upon review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 16), filed on January 19, 2018, recommending that the
decision of the Commissioner (Defendant) be reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), and that this case be remanded for further administrative action consistent with the Report.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes
only a recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to
make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report
to which specific objections are made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)-(3).
On January 25, 2018, Defendant replied to the Report (ECF No. 18), stating that she was
not going to file any objections to the Report. Plaintiff also did not file any objections to the
Report.

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted for Carolyn
Colvin as the named defendant because she became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security
on January 23, 2017.

In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in 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).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of
the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[t]he Supreme
Court has authorized the waiver rule that we enforce. . . . ‘[A] court of appeals may adopt a rule
conditioning appeal, when taken from a district court judgment that adopts a magistrate's
recommendation, upon the filing of objections with the district court identifying those issues on
which further review is desired.’”) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985)).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report
provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. As neither party objects to the Report or its
finding, the court ACCEPTS the Report (ECF No. 16), REVERSING the Defendant’s decision
in this case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and REMANDING this matter for
further administrative action by the Social Security Administration in a manner consistent with the
Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
February 1, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina