From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harris v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
Dec 28, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:09-0028-HFF-BM (D.S.C. Dec. 28, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:09-0028-HFF-BM.

December 28, 2009


ORDER


This case was filed as a Social Security action. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that the decision of Defendant be reversed and this case be remanded to Defendant for the purpose of a proper evaluation, discussion and findings with respect to the medical records relating to Plaintiff's diabetes and peripheral neuropathy, and for such further administrative action as is deemed necessary and appropriate. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court 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).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on December 2, 2009. On December 21, 2009, Defendant informed the Court that he would not be filing any objections to the Report. In the absence of such objections, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court that the decision of Defendant be REVERSED and this case be REMANDED to Defendant for the purpose of a proper evaluation, discussion and findings with respect to the medical records relating to Plaintiff's diabetes and peripheral neuropathy, and for such further administrative action as is deemed necessary and appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Harris v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division
Dec 28, 2009
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:09-0028-HFF-BM (D.S.C. Dec. 28, 2009)
Case details for

Harris v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:KIMBERLY J. HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division

Date published: Dec 28, 2009

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:09-0028-HFF-BM (D.S.C. Dec. 28, 2009)

Citing Cases

Townsend v. Berryhill

With respect to the remainder of Plaintiff's complaints concerning the decision, on remand the ALJ will be…

Sutton v. Berryhill

Accordingly, the Commissioner should address any additional allegations of error on remand. See Harris v.…