United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
August 3, 2015
Cheryl Willingham, Plaintiff,
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
R. BRYAN HARWELL, District Judge.
Plaintiff Cheryl Willingham seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court either (a) reverse the Commissioner's decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remand the case to the Commissioner for further administrative action; or (b) remand the case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). R & R at 10-15.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the R & R. In the absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. 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 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)).
Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error, and therefore adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 13] of the Magistrate Judge. Regarding the appropriate mandate, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to reverse and remand the Commissioner's decision pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (instead of remanding pursuant to sentence six). See R & R at 10-15.
The Court therefore ORDERS that the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and that the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further administrative action. On remand, the Commissioner shall consider the combined cumulative effect of Plaintiff's impairments and any resulting limitations, and whether those combined limitations rendered Plaintiff disabled. See R & R at 10. Also on remand, Plaintiff may supplement the record with the medical evaluation from Dr. Robert A. Ringel, M.D. See ECF No. 8-1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.