Filed: Aug. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 05, 2019
Summary: ORDER MARGARET B. SEYMOUR , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff William Brown Junior Gregory filed the within action on July 5, 2018, seeking judicial review of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff's claims for supplemental security income. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pretrial handling. On July 19, 2019, the Magistrat
Summary: ORDER MARGARET B. SEYMOUR , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff William Brown Junior Gregory filed the within action on July 5, 2018, seeking judicial review of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff's claims for supplemental security income. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pretrial handling. On July 19, 2019, the Magistrate..
More
ORDER
MARGARET B. SEYMOUR, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff William Brown Junior Gregory filed the within action on July 5, 2018, seeking judicial review of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff's claims for supplemental security income.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pretrial handling. On July 19, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the case be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On July 31, 2019, the Commissioner filed a notice of not filing objections to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portions of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or may recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge 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 is reversed and remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings as set forth herein and in the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
