From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION
Jun 6, 2012
C/A No. 6:11-1752-CMC-KFM (D.S.C. Jun. 6, 2012)

Opinion

C/A No. 6:11-1752-CMC-KFM

06-06-2012

Phyllis Davis, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


OPINION & ORDER

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). Plaintiff appealed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g). The matter is currently before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("Report") of Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02, et seq., D.S.C.

On April 4, 2012, the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") filed a motion to remand this matter. Plaintiff did not respond to the Commissioner's motion to remand. The Report, filed on May 16, 2012, recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded for further administrative action because two of the exhibits in the administrative record (Exhibits 18F and 19F) pertain to another individual with the same first name as Plaintiff but with a different last name, date of birth, and social security number. Dkt. No. 24 at 2. No objections to the Report have been filed and the time for doing so has passed.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "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.'") (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

The court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and incorporates the Report by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative action consistent with the Report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________

CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Columbia, South Carolina

June 6, 2012


Summaries of

Davis v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION
Jun 6, 2012
C/A No. 6:11-1752-CMC-KFM (D.S.C. Jun. 6, 2012)
Case details for

Davis v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:Phyllis Davis, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Jun 6, 2012

Citations

C/A No. 6:11-1752-CMC-KFM (D.S.C. Jun. 6, 2012)