Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

MIZELL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 1:14-cv-04484-JMC. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. South Carolina Number: infdco20151120e48 Visitors: 18
Filed: Nov. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 19, 2015
Summary: ORDER J. MICHELLE CHILDS , District Judge . This matter is before the court for a review of United States Magistrate Judge Paige Gossett's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), filed on October 22, 2015 (ECF No. 15), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. The Report sets forth the rel
More

ORDER

This matter is before the court for a review of United States Magistrate Judge Paige Gossett's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), filed on October 22, 2015 (ECF No. 15), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards which this court incorporates herein without a recitation.

The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made. Defendant notified the court that it would not be objecting to the Magistrate Judge's Report. (ECF No. 17.)

In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15), REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income pursuant to sentence four (4) of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and REMANDS for further administrative proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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