Opinion
Case No. 1:18-cv-03013-TLW
02-11-2020
Ted Owens, PLAINTIFF v. Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security, DEFENDANT
Order
This social security matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed by the magistrate judge to whom this case was assigned. ECF No. 21. In the R&R, the magistrate judge recommends reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding the case. The Commissioner filed a notice informing the Court that no objections would be filed. ECF No. 22. This matter is now ripe for decision.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the R&R to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, "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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R. Having found no clear error on the face of the record, the R&R is ACCEPTED and the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the R&R and this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L . Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Senior United States District Judge February 11, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina