Opinion
C/A No. 8:12-347-TMC
08-20-2013
Charles Edward Gethers, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court for a review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("Report") filed on July 29, 2013, recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's claim for and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") be reversed and remanded, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the Magistrate Judge's Report. (ECF No. 24).
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. 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 objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
--------
On August 15, 2013, the Commissioner filed a notice of intent not to file any objections to the Report. (ECF No. 26). Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report and the time to do so has expired.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, 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 and Recommendation 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); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report of the Magistrate Judge which is incorporated herein by reference. The Commissioner's final decision is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Magistrate Judge's Report. In remanding this case to the Commissioner, the court expresses no opinion as to whether Plaintiff is disabled or not. That issue is for the Commissioner to decide, subject to judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
August 20, 2013