United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
June 30, 2015
Michael Roy Harkness, Plaintiff,
Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant.
This matter is before the court for a review of United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), filed on June 8, 2015 (ECF No. 21), recommending that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income be reversed and remanded. The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards which this court incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court, which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made.
The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report by June 25, 2015. (See ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff Michael Roy Harkness (“Plaintiff”) did not file any objections. The Commissioner filed a Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on June 25, 2015. (ECF No. 23.)
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. 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). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) and REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiffs claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income pursuant to sentence four (4) of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and REMANDS the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.