Summary
In Kinsey v. Colvin, Civ. A. No. 8:13-1723-BHH, 2014 WL 6090772 (D.S.C. Nov. 13, 2014), the ALJ found the plaintiff had severe impairments of degenerative disc disease, anxiety/panic attacks, and right carpal tunnel syndrome, and non-severe impairments of fibromyalgia, depression, premature ventricular contractions and migraines. Kinsey, 2014 WL 6090772, at *9.
Summary of this case from Wahab v. BerryhillOpinion
Civil Action No.: 8:13-1723-BHH
11-13-2014
Robin D. Kinsey, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rules 73.02(B)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02 for the District of South Carolina. The plaintiff Robin D. Kinsey ("the plaintiff"), brought this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying the plaintiff's claim for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB").
On October 24, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Commissioner's decision be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 28.) Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by November 10, 2014. The plaintiff filed no objections, but the Commissioner filed "Defendant's Notice of Not Filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge." (ECF No. 29.)
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 the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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 to him with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and concurs in the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. The decision of the Commissioner to deny benefits is reversed and the action is remanded for further administrative action consistent with this order and the Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
November 13, 2014
Greenville, South Carolina