From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patterson v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
Jul 31, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:07-1602-HFF-BHH (D.S.C. Jul. 31, 2008)

Summary

adopting report and recommendation

Summary of this case from Moran v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:07-1602-HFF-BHH.

July 31, 2008


ORDER


This is 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 Defendant's decision be reversed and remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings. 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 May 16, 2008, Defendant filed his objections to the Report on June 4, 2008, and Plaintiff filed her response to Defendant's objections on July 1, 2008. The Court has reviewed Defendant's objections but is of the opinion that the best course of action here is to adopt the Report of the Magistrate Judge and reverse and remand the case for further consideration.

Accordingly, after a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Defendant's objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that Defendant's decision be REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Patterson v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
Jul 31, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:07-1602-HFF-BHH (D.S.C. Jul. 31, 2008)

adopting report and recommendation

Summary of this case from Moran v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

noting vocational expert never expressly discussed whether plaintiff's inability to perform more than 1-2 step instructions was compatible with the position requiring at least a reasoning level of two

Summary of this case from McCullough v. Colvin

noting vocational expert never expressly discussed whether plaintiff's inability to perform more than one- to two- step instructions was compatible with the position requiring at least a reasoning level of two

Summary of this case from Shivers v. Colvin

noting vocational expert never expressly discussed whether plaintiff's inability to perform more than 1-2 step instructions was compatible with the position requiring at least a reasoning level of two

Summary of this case from Martin v. Astrue
Case details for

Patterson v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:MARY ELIZABETH PATTERSON, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division

Date published: Jul 31, 2008

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:07-1602-HFF-BHH (D.S.C. Jul. 31, 2008)

Citing Cases

Shivers v. Colvin

at a conflict exists between a GED reasoning level of two or three and a limitation to simple, routine, and…

Moran v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Other courts hold that the level three reasoning requirement precludes simple and routine work. See, e.g.,…