Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

WILLIAMS v. COLVIN, 1:14-cv-4266 DCN. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. South Carolina Number: infdco20151118629 Visitors: 3
Filed: Nov. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. NORTON , District Judge . This Social Security case is before the Court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the Commissioner's decision be reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
More

ORDER

This Social Security case is before the Court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the Commissioner's decision be reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.

This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984).1 On November 6, 2015, the defendant filed a reply stating that she will not file objections to the Report and Recommendation.

A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and incorporated into this Order. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, the decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED AND REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. In Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985), the court held "that a pro se litigant must receive fair notification of the consequences of failure to object to a magistrate judge's report before such a procedural default will result in waiver of the right to appeal. The notice must be `sufficiently understandable to one in appellant's circumstances fairly to appraise him of what is required.'" Id. at 846. Plaintiff was advised in a clear manner that his objections had to be filed within ten (10) days, and he received notice of the consequences at the appellate level of his failure to object to the magistrate judge's report.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer