Summary
In Summers, this Court found the ALJ erred in its finding that the plaintiff engaged in SGA because the record contained evidence suggesting that the plaintiff's prior work was in a sheltered or special environment and the ALJ "only considered the amount of [p]laintiff's earnings and ignored the provisions in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1574(b), which required that he consider whether [p]laintiff's wages were being subsidized."
Summary of this case from Myers v. BerryhillOpinion
Civil Action No.: 1:13-2546-BHH
10-16-2014
Inither Summers, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. Plaintiff Inither Summers("Plaintiff"), brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB").
On September 25, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. On October 7, 2014, the Commissioner filed "Defendant's Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge." (ECF No. 25.)
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 him 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 to deny benefits is reversed and the action is remanded for further administrative action consistent with this order and the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
October 16, 2014
Greenville, South Carolina