Scott v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON 21 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 04/21/2015. (egra, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Allyson Kaye Scott,
Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
Civil Action No.: 9:14-1139-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 Allyson Kaye Scott (“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 supplemental security income.
On April 1, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in
which he recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded for
further administrative action. (ECF No. 21.) On April 20, 2015, the Commissioner filed
“Defendant’s Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge.” (ECF No. 23.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
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
April 21, 2015
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?