Culbertson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 1:2015cv03556 - Document 19 (D.S.C. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 14 Report and Recommendation, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the matter for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Honorable J. Michelle Childs on 06/07/2016. (bshr, )

Download PDF
Culbertson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Veronica Culbertson, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting ) Commissioner of Social Security ) Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-03556-JMC ORDER AND OPINION This matter is before the court for a review of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges’ Report and Recommendation (“Report”), filed on May 13, 2016 (ECF No. 14), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claims for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) 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(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.). Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c)(3). 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Dockets.Justia.com The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report by May 31, 2016. (See ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report. Defendant does not intend to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 18.) 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, 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 & Accident 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, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons set forth in the Report, the final decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s claims for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) is REVERSED and REMANDED for further administrative proceedings consistent with this decision. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Judge June 7, 2016 Columbia, 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.