Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. South Carolina

Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedApril 22, 2020

Docket8:19-cv-02055

StatusUnknown

This text of Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D.S.C. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Terrance Jerome Collins, ) C/A No. 8:19-cv-2055-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of ) Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ )

Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his claim for Supplemental Security Income. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pre-trial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) on April 6, 2020, recommending that the Court reverse the decision of the Commissioner and remand for further proceedings. ECF No. 16. Neither party filed objections to the Report. 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 this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[I]n 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 to 1983 addition)). Having reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and adopts the Report by reference in this Order. Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and the Court remands this matter to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge April 22, 2020 Spartanburg, South Carolina

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Terrance Jerome Collins, ) C/A No. 8:19-cv-2055-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of ) Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ )

Plaintiff has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his claim for Supplemental Security Income. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pre-trial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) on April 6, 2020, recommending that the Court reverse the decision of the Commissioner and remand for further proceedings. ECF No. 16. Neither party filed objections to the Report. 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 this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[I]n 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 to 1983 addition)). Having reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and adopts the Report by reference in this Order. Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and the Court remands this matter to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge April 22, 2020 Spartanburg, South Carolina

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-scd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack