Grant v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Filing
25
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 21 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 3/11/2009. (sshe, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Barbara Grant, Plaintiff, vs. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. 2:08-854-HMH-RSC OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr, 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 recommendation of the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006). The parties filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
1
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Carr's Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is affirmed for the period of time prior to August 17, 2006, and is reversed for the period of time following August 17, 2006, under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), and the case is remanded to the Commissioner for consideration of the new evidence and continuation of the sequential evaluation process if necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina March 11, 2009
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?
