Byas v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 0:2018cv00271 - Document 24 (D.S.C. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 21 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the case for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 03/28/2019. (bshr, )

Download PDF
Byas v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION MICHELLE LORRAINE BYAS, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.: 0:18-00271-MGL OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, 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 Michelle Lorraine Byas (Plaintiff) brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. On March 4, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report in which she recommended the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. On March 18, 2019, the Commissioner filed “Defendant’s Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 her 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 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. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE March 28, 2019 Columbia, South Carolina 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.