Nelson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
19
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Saul's decision is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative review in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 2/16/2021. (tsim, )
9:19-cv-01807-MGL
Date Filed 02/16/21
Entry Number 19
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
CHANDRA NELSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 9:19-01807-MGL
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
REVERSING DEFENDANT’S DECISION,
AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER AGENCY PROCEEDINGS
This is a Social Security appeal in which Plaintiff Chandra Nelson (Nelson) seeks judicial
review of a final decision of Defendant Andrew M. Saul (Saul) denying her claim for Disability
Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Titles II and XVI of the
Social Security Act (Act).
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Saul’s decision be
reversed and the action be remanded for further agency proceedings. The Report was made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 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 the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report to which a specific objection is made, and the Court
9:19-cv-01807-MGL
Date Filed 02/16/21
Entry Number 19
Page 2 of 2
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on January 19, 2021. On February 1, 2021, Saul
indicated he did not intend to file any objections to the Report. “[I]n 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright
v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th Cir. 1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard
set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the
judgment of the Court Saul’s decision is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative review in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 16th day of February 2021, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?