Opinion
Case No. 6:13-cv-01117-TLW
08-14-2014
Darlene Sue Hook, PLAINTIFF v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, DEFENDANT
Order
This social security matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") filed on July 31, 2014 by Magistrate Judge McDonald, to whom this case was assigned. (Doc. #21.) In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends reversing the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, and remanding the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The Commissioner filed a notice stating that she will not submit objections to the R&R. (Doc. #22.) This matter is now ripe for decision.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the R&R to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to the R&R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, "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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Furthermore, a party's failure to file specific written objections to the R&R waives the right to appellate review of that claim. See id.
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R. Having found no clear error on the face of the record, the R&R is ACCEPTED, the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings as discussed in the R&R.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
August 14, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina