Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 0:2018cv00411 - Document 19 (D.S.C. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 16 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the action for further administrative action. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 4/22/2019. (asni, )

Download PDF
Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION TERESA ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. ______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.: 0:18-00411-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 Teresa Rogers (“Plaintiff”), brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits. On April 4, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report in which she recommended the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report. On April 11, 2019, the Commissioner filed “Defendant’s Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge.” ECF No. 17. 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 specific objection is made, and the Court Dockets.Justia.com 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 April 22, 2019 Columbia, South Carolina

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.