Mohr v. Colvin, 4: 15-427-RMG. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20160503g75
Visitors: 7
Filed: May 02, 2016
Latest Update: May 02, 2016
Summary: ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") on April 8, 2016 recommending that the
Summary: ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") on April 8, 2016 recommending that the ..
More
ORDER
RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") on April 8, 2016 recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded to the agency because of the Administrative Law Judge's failure to fully account for Plaintiff's moderate difficulties in concentration, persistence and pace in the RFC. (Dkt. No. 18). The Defendant has advised the Court she does not intend to file objections to the R & R. (Dkt. No. 21).
The Court has reviewed the R & R and the record evidence and finds that the Magistrate Judge has ably addressed the factual and legal issues in this matter. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as the order of this Court, REVERSES the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and REMANDS the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this order.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
