Miller v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, No. 5:2012cv02693 - Document 31 (D.S.C. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: 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. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 2/21/2014. (prou, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Lisa D. Miller, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) 1 Carolyn W. Colvin, ) Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________ ) Civil Action No.: 5:12-2693-MGL OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, 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 Lisa D. Miller ( 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 January 31, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Commissioner s decision be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 25 at 124.) Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. On February 18, 2014, 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. 1 The Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 14, 2013. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin should be substituted for Michael J. Astrue as Defendant in this lawsuit. 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. ยง 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/ Mary G. Lewis United States District Judge February 21, 2014 Spartanburg, 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.
