Smith v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, No. 8:2014cv00370 - Document 28 (D.S.C. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER adopting 25 Report and Recommendation. 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 Bruce Howe Hendricks on 5/7/2015.(abuc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. Commissioner Social Security Administration Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Sarah Smith, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.: 8:14-370-BHH OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02 for the District of South Carolina. The plaintiff Sarah Smith (“the plaintiff”), brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying the plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. On May 4, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded for further administrative action. (ECF No. 25.) On May 6, 2015, the Commissioner filed “Defendant’s Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.” (ECF No. 26.) 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 7, 2015 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.
