Ellis v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration et al
Filing
21
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 17 Report and Recommendations, the final decision of the Commissioner is reversed and the case is remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) for further action. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 3/5/09. (bbro, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Michael J. Astrue, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Patricia Ellis, C/A No. 3:07-3996-CMC-JRM
OPINION AND ORDER
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's claim for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). Plaintiff appealed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). The matter is currently before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("Report") of Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02, et seq., D.S.C. This court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "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.'") (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
The Report was filed on February 19, 2009, and recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and the case remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Specifically, the Report recommends that the case be remanded to consider all of Plaintiff's impairments (including obesity and neuropathy and/or radiculopathy), determine her RFC in light of all of the evidence, properly evaluate her credibility, consider the opinion of Plaintiff's treating neurologist (Dr. Smith) in light of all of the evidence, and continue the sequential evaluation process if necessary. No objections have been filed.1 After reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference. For the reasons set out therein, the final decision of the Commissioner is reversed and the case is remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) for further action consistent with the directions in the Report and Recommendation as here incorporated. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina March 5, 2009
On March 4, 2009, Defendant notified the court that he would not file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 19.
1
]]>
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?
