Summary
remanding where ALJ "failed to make specific findings regarding the resources available to Plaintiff and whether her failure to seek additional treatment and medication was based upon her inability to pay"
Summary of this case from Smith v. ColvinOpinion
Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-03988-JMC
10-07-2015
Rebecca Dawn Brownlee-Nobs, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the court for a review of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges's Report and Recommendation ("Report"), filed on August, 19 2015 (ECF No. 11), 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 makes only a recommendation to this court that 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 reviews de novo only those portions of a Magistrate Judge's Report to which specific objections are filed, and it reviews those portions not objected to—including those portions to which only "general and conclusory" objections have been made—for clear error. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The court may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The role of the federal judiciary in the administrative scheme established by the Social Security Act is a limited one. Section 405(g) of the Act provides, "[T]he findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). "Substantial evidence has been defined innumerable times as more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance." Thomas v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541, 543 (4th Cir. 1964).
This standard precludes a de novo review of the factual circumstances that substitutes the court's findings for those of the Commissioner. See Vitek v. Finch, 438 F.2d 1157 (4th Cir. 1971). The court must uphold the Commissioner's decision as long as it is supported by substantial evidence. See Blalock v. Richardson, 483 F.2d 773, 775 (4th Cir. 1972). "From this it does not follow, however, that the findings of the administrative agency are to be mechanically accepted. The statutorily granted right of review contemplates more than an uncritical rubber stamping of the administrative agency." Flack v. Cohen, 413 F.2d 278, 279 (4th Cir. 1969). "[T]he courts must not abdicate their responsibility to give careful scrutiny to the whole record to assure that there is a sound foundation for the [Commissioner's] findings, and that this conclusion is rational." Vitek, 438 F.2d at 1157-58.
In this case, the parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report by September 8, 2015. (See ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff filed no objections. On August 24, 2015, Defendant filed a Reply indicating receipt of the Report and further stating that Defendant would not be filing objections. (ECF No. 14 at 1.)
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 findings of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11), REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, and REMANDS the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this decision pursuant to sentence four (4) of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
United States District Judge
October 7, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina