Huff v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DOPTING 20 Report and Recommendation.The Commissionersfinal decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g) for further administrative review as set forth in the Report. ( Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 2/13/18. (jsmi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Civil Action No. 8:16-cv-03942-TMC
Plaintiff, Kimberly Huff, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and
1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and
Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) pursuant to the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1). This
matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the
United States Magistrate Judge, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.). (ECF No. 18). The Report recommends that the
Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) for
further proceedings consistent with the Report. (ECF No. 18). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge
determined that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) should “explain her consideration of
Plaintiff’s moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace” in formulating Plaintiff’s
residual functional capacity and should further explain or consider the hypothetical she posed to
the vocational expert. (ECF No. 20 at 21).1 Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report. On
Because this issue alone subjected the case to be remanded back to the ALJ, the Magistrate Judge did not opine as
to Plaintiff’s further allegations of error but did instruct the ALJ to consider those allegations on remand. (ECF No.
20 at 21).
February 5, 2018, the Commissioner filed a notice of her intent not to file any objections to the
Report. (ECF No. 22). However, Defendant does not concede that her administrative decision
denying benefits to Plaintiff was not substantially justified. (ECF No. 22).
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 27071 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the Report. 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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 20), which is incorporated herein by reference. The Commissioner’s
final decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) for further administrative review as set forth in the Report. (ECF No. 20).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
February 13, 2018
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?