Curry v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
26
ORDER RULING ON 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits is reversed and the action is remanded for further administrative action. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 12/04/2015. (egra, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Cleveland A. Curry,
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant. )
________________________________ )
Civil Action No.: 9:14-3883-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 Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
Plaintiff
Cleveland A. Curry (“Plaintiff”), brought this action seeking judicial review of the final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his claim for
Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”).
On November 12, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which he recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and that the case be remanded to the
Commissioner for a proper evaluation and consideration of Plaintiff’s need to use a cane,
and for such further administrative action as may be necessary and appropriate. (ECF No.
22.) On December 3, 2015, the Commissioner filed “Defendant’s Notice of Not Filing
Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.” (ECF No. 24.)
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, 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?