From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goodwine v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Jan 28, 2010
C/A No. 3:08-3829-JFA-JRM (D.S.C. Jan. 28, 2010)

Opinion

C/A No. 3:08-3829-JFA-JRM.

January 28, 2010


ORDER


This is an action brought by the plaintiff, Teddy Goodwine, pursuant to sections 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act, as amended, to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") denying his claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and Recommendation wherein he suggests that the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits should be reversed under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and remanded to the Commissioner further proceedings. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge opines that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge provides a detailed discussion of the undisputed and relevant medical evidence as stated by the plaintiff. This court incorporates such without a recitation.

The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. 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 parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. The plaintiff did not file objections. However, the Commissioner filed a notice stating that he would not file objections to the Report. Thus, it appears the matter is ripe for review by this court.

After a careful review of the record, including the findings of the ALJ, the briefs from the plaintiff and the Commissioner, and the Magistrate Judge's Report, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts in the instant case and that the conclusions are proper. The Magistrate Judge's findings are hereby specifically incorporated herein by reference.

Accordingly, this action is reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings as stated herein and in the Magistrate Judge's Report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Goodwine v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Jan 28, 2010
C/A No. 3:08-3829-JFA-JRM (D.S.C. Jan. 28, 2010)
Case details for

Goodwine v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:Teddy Goodwine, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Jan 28, 2010

Citations

C/A No. 3:08-3829-JFA-JRM (D.S.C. Jan. 28, 2010)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Colvin

As noted by Plaintiff, "[t]he proper inquiry is whether there is substantial evidence to support the finding…