United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
September 16, 2014
RITA S. WHITES, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that this court reverse and remand Acting Commissioner of Social Security Carolyn Colvin's decision denying plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The Commissioner filed a brief objection to the R&R.
This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's R&R to which specific, written objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." (emphasis added)); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2) ("[A] party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." (emphasis added)). "Section 636(b)(1) does not countenance a form of generalized objection to cover all issues addressed by the magistrate judge; it contemplates that a party's objection to a magistrate judge's report be specific and particularized...." United States v. Midgette , 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added); see also Page v. Lee , 337 F.3d 411, 416 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003) ("[P]etitioner's failure to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation with the specificity required by [Rule 72(b)] is, standing alone, a sufficient basis upon which to affirm the judgment of the district court....").
The Commissioner's objection to the R&R consists entirely of the following:
For the reasons stated in the Defendant's Memorandum in Support of the Commissioner's Decision the Commissioner respectfully asks the Court to reject the Report and Recommendation and affirm the administrative decision. The Commissioner's final decision is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.
Based on the foregoing, the court, being satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record, ADOPTS the magistrate judge's R&R, REVERSES the Commissioner's decision, and REMANDS the case for an award of benefits to the plaintiff based on a disability commencing August 26, 2005.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.