Jenkins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 1:2014cv04880 - Document 26 (D.S.C. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 22 Report and Recommendation and REVERSING the final decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income pursuant to sentence four (4) of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and REMANDING for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 11/19/2015. (asni, )

Download PDF
Jenkins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Dedra Denise Jenkins, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Commissioner of Social Security ) Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-04880-JMC ORDER This matter is before the court for a review of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva Hodge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), filed on October 29, 2015 (ECF No. 22), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards which this court incorporates herein without a recitation. The Magistrate Judge’s Report is 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, which 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 to which specific objections are made. Defendant notified the court that it would not be objecting to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. (ECF No. 24.) In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22), REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income pursuant to sentence four (4) of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and REMANDS for further administrative proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Judge November 19, 2015 Orangeburg, 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.