Filed: Jun. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 23, 2015
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS , District Judge . This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, 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 Anna L. Moore ("the plaintiff"), brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denyi
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS , District Judge . This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, 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 Anna L. Moore ("the plaintiff"), brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denyin..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, 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 Anna L. Moore ("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 29, 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 June 15, 2015, the Commissioner filed "Defendant's Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge." (ECF No. 27.)
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.
