Opinion
C/A No. 8:13-cv-00364-CMC-JDA
08-19-2013
Rodney Romerro Scott, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"). Plaintiff appealed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g). The matter is currently before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("Report") of Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02, et seq., D.S.C.
On July 9, 2013, the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") filed a motion to remand this matter, to which Plaintiff had no objection. Dkt. No. 11. The Report, filed on July 10, 2013, recommends that the decision of the Commissioner be remanded for further administrative action to reassess Plaintiff's mental impairment and consider Listing 12.05C, reassess Plaintiff's residual functional capacity, reassess Plaintiff's credibility, and, if necessary, obtain medical and vocational expert testimony. Dkt. No. 12 at 1. No objections to the Report have been filed and the time for doing so has passed.
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 court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "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.'") (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
The court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the court adopts and incorporates the Report by reference. For the reasons set forth therein, the decision of the Commissioner is remanded pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative action consistent with the Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Columbia, South Carolina
August 19, 2013