From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Jul 15, 2014
Civil Action No.: 5:13-cv-01704-RBH (D.S.C. Jul. 15, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action No.: 5:13-cv-01704-RBH

07-15-2014

Elizabeth N. Williams, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORDER

Plaintiff Elizabeth N. Williams filed this appeal of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental social security income. This matter is now before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand the matter to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation 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 is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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 with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). 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 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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).

After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is

ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and that the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________

R. Bryan Harwell

United States District Judge
July 15, 2014
Florence, South Carolina


Summaries of

Williams v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Jul 15, 2014
Civil Action No.: 5:13-cv-01704-RBH (D.S.C. Jul. 15, 2014)
Case details for

Williams v. Colvin

Case Details

Full title:Elizabeth N. Williams, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting…

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

Date published: Jul 15, 2014

Citations

Civil Action No.: 5:13-cv-01704-RBH (D.S.C. Jul. 15, 2014)