From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hucks v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jul 23, 2012
Civil Action No.: 8:11-cv-470-TLW-JDA (D.S.C. Jul. 23, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No.: 8:11-cv-470-TLW-JDA

07-23-2012

Roger Hucks, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORDER

The plaintiff, Roger Hucks ("plaintiff"), brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the defendant, Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner" or "defendant"), denying his claim for supplemental security income. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Jacquelyn D. Austin, to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), DSC. (Doc. # 25). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Commissioner's decision be reversed pursuant sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and that the case be remanded to the Commissioner for further action consistent with the Report. (Doc. # 25). The defendant filed a reply to the Report, indicating the Commissioner would not file objections to the Report. (Doc. # 27).

This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. 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 has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 25). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and this case is remanded to the Commissioner for further action consistent with the Report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Terry L. Wooten

United States District Judge

July 23, 2012

Florence, South Carolina


Summaries of

Hucks v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jul 23, 2012
Civil Action No.: 8:11-cv-470-TLW-JDA (D.S.C. Jul. 23, 2012)
Case details for

Hucks v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:Roger Hucks, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social…

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

Date published: Jul 23, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No.: 8:11-cv-470-TLW-JDA (D.S.C. Jul. 23, 2012)