Stevens v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 1:2015cv02823 - Document 30 (D.S.C. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 26 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the matter for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 05/20/2016. (bshr, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Thomas Christopher Stevens, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Carolyn W. Colvin, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ ) Civil Action No.: 1:15-cv-2823-BHH OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges 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 Thomas Christopher Stevens (“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 (“DIB”). On April 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded for further administrative action. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. On May 6, 2016, the Commissioner filed “Defendant’s Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge.” (ECF No. 28.) 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 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to him 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 Recommendation 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 and Recommendation. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge May 20, 2016 Greenville, 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.
