Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 24

ORDER RULING ON 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 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 and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 12/04/2014. (egra, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Carolyn W. Colvin, ) Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ ) Christina Louise Moore, Civil Action No.: 9:13-1903-BHH OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02 for the District of South Carolina. The plaintiff Christina Louise Moore (“the plaintiff”), brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying the plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). On November 12, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 20.) On December 2, 2014, the Commissioner filed “Defendant’s Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.” (ECF No. 22.) 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 him 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 Recommendation 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 and Recommendation. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge December 4, 2014 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?