Williams v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
25
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 20 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable A Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr on 6/29/18. (alew, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
James Russell Lee Williams,
)
)
Plaintiff, )
vs.
)
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant. )
)
_______________________________
)
Civil Action No.: 8:17-cv-658-AMQ
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff James Russell Lee Williams’s (“Plaintiff”)
complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner
of Social Security’s final decision, which denied Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income.
The record includes the Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, which was
made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.).
In the Report, which was filed on June 7, 2018, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court
reverse the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remand
the case to the Commissioner for further consideration and analysis of the evidence, and further
administrative action as set forth in the Report. (ECF No. 20.) In a notice filed on June 21, 2018,
Defendant informed the Court that she will not be filing objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report. (ECF No. 22.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are 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).
In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable
law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding
none, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Report (ECF No. 20). Therefore, it is
ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is reversed pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and this case is remanded to the Commissioner for further
administrative action as set forth in the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr.
United States District Judge
June 29, 2018
Greenville, 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?