Summary
finding a limitation in the RFC to "only simple, routine, repetitive tasks; he must work in a static work environment (which I define as an environment with few work place changes)" did not account for the claimant's "limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace as to his ability to stay on task"
Summary of this case from Jackson v. SaulOpinion
C/A No.: 5:14-cv-0248 DCN
05-21-2015
Aubrey Eugene Bailey, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDER
This Social Security case is before the Court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and the case be remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative action.
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 ). On May 21, 2015, the defendant filed a reply stating that she will not file objections to the Report and Recommendation.
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.
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 to the Commissioner for further administrative action.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
David C. Norton
United States District Judge
May 21, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.