Thomassie v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 29

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 25 Report and Recommendation, Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 10/161/8. (jsmi, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION FRANK WAYNE THOMASSIE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ) Acting Commissioner of the Social Security ) Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________ Civil Action No.: 8:17-cv-02321-MGL OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. Plaintiff Frank Wayne Thomassie (“Plaintiff”), brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits (DIB). On September 27, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report in which she recommended the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report. On October 10, 2018, the Commissioner filed “Defendant’s Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.” ECF No. 26. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this 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 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 to her with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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). The Court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein by reference. The decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits is REVERSED, and the action is REMANDED for further administrative action consistent with this Order and the Report. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE October 16, 2018 Columbia, South Carolina 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?