United States District Court, D. South Carolina
DAVID C. NORTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This Social Security case is before the Court upon the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for administrative action.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report 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(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). On July 2, 2015, the defendant filed a reply stating that she will not file objections to the Report and Recommendation.
A de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is adopted and incorporated into this Order. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, the decision of the Commissioner is hereby REVERSED AND REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for administrative action.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the ...