Morse v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 19

ORDER RULING ON 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION It is ordered that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and remanded for further administrative action in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 01/18/2018. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Debra J. Morse,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill,
)
Commissioner of Social Security
)
Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 9:16-cv-03683-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation filed on December 5, 2017, addressing Plaintiff Debra J. Morse’s claim for
disability benefits. (ECF No. 15.) The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that,
although Plaintiff does suffer from the “severe” impairment of Chiari malformation, anxiety, and
depression, Plaintiff could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national
economy with her limitations, and was therefore not entitled to disability benefits during the time
period at issue. (Id. at 9.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for a review of the ALJ’s
decision, thereby making the determination of the ALJ the final decision of the Commissioner.
(Id. at 2.)
The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Appeals Council committed reversible error in its
evaluation of the evidence submitted by Plaintiff on appeal, thereby requiring a remand of this
case for further consideration of Plaintiff’s claim. (Id. at 10); see Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700,
704 (4th Cir. 2001) (stating that where a claimant submits additional evidence that was not before
the ALJ when requesting review by the Appeals Council, if the evidence is new and material, the
Appeals Council is to evaluate the entire record, including the new and material evidence to see if
1

it warrants any change in the ALJ’s decision). The Report and Recommendation sets forth the
relevant facts and legal standards which this court incorporates herein without a recitation. (ECF
No. 15.)
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge
makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight.
The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber,
423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The parties were fully apprised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 15 at 18.) On December 15, 2017, the Commissioner filed Defendant’s Notice of Not
Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation wherein she stated her intention not to file
any objections. (ECF No. 17.) In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written
objections to the Report and Recommendation results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal
from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

2

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States
v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) and
incorporates it herein. It is therefore ordered that the Commissioner’s decision be REVERSED
and REMANDED for further administrative action in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
January 18, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

3