From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Malachi v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Feb 11, 2016
Civil Action No. 2:14-3334-TMC (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 2016)

Summary

finding that ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff was capable of performing past relevant work was not supported by substantial evidence where ALJ failed to explain how he credited and resolved conflicting statements between plaintiff's work history report and hearing testimony

Summary of this case from Hardy v. Berryhill

Opinion

Civil Action No. 2:14-3334-TMC

02-11-2016

Shequita L. Malachi, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.


ORDER

Plaintiff Shequita L. Malachi ("Malachi") brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying her claim for supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act. This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("Report") of the United States Magistrate Judge, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C. (ECF No. 17). The Report recommends that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and remanded, pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with the Report. Id. Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report, and on February 11, 2016, the Commissioner filed a notice of her intent not to file any objections to the Report. (ECF No. 18).

The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. 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).

After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report. (ECF No. 17). Accordingly, 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 Report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain

Timothy M. Cain

United States District Judge February 11, 2016
Anderson, South Carolina


Summaries of

Malachi v. Colvin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Feb 11, 2016
Civil Action No. 2:14-3334-TMC (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 2016)

finding that ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff was capable of performing past relevant work was not supported by substantial evidence where ALJ failed to explain how he credited and resolved conflicting statements between plaintiff's work history report and hearing testimony

Summary of this case from Hardy v. Berryhill
Case details for

Malachi v. Colvin

Case Details

Full title:Shequita L. Malachi, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner…

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

Date published: Feb 11, 2016

Citations

Civil Action No. 2:14-3334-TMC (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 2016)

Citing Cases

Hardy v. Berryhill

The ALJ's failure to explain his consideration and resolution of the conflicting evidence above simply does…