Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Dubose v. Berryhill, 0:17-cv-01498-TMC. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. South Carolina Number: infdco20180917d07 Visitors: 4
Filed: Sep. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY M. CAIN , District Judge . Plaintiff, Susie Mae Dubose ("Dubose"), brought this action on behalf of her minor grandchild ("D.G.") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner"), denying D.G.'s claim for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") pursuant to the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1). This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("Report")
More

ORDER

Plaintiff, Susie Mae Dubose ("Dubose"), brought this action on behalf of her minor grandchild ("D.G.") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner"), denying D.G.'s claim for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") pursuant to the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1). This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("Report") of the United States Magistrate Judge, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.). (ECF No. 18). The Report recommends that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Report. Id. at 18. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report. On September 7, 2018, the Commissioner filed a notice of her intent not to file any objections to the Report. (ECF No. 19). However, the Commissioner does not concede that her administrative decision denying benefits to Plaintiff was not substantially justified. Id.

The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. 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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 18), which is incorporated herein by reference. The Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative review as set forth in the Report. (ECF No. 18).

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