Holmes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 16

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 13 Report and Recommendation, dismissing the action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 11/13/2013. (bshr, )

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

Levern Holmes,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________________)

C/A No.: 0:13-1198-JFA-PJG

ORDER

The plaintiff, Levern Holmes, brings this action through counsel pursuant to § 405(g)
of the Social Security Act, as amended, to obtain judicial review of the final decision by the
Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits
(DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and
Recommendation wherein she suggests that the complaint should be dismissed because the
plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action. Specifically, the plaintiff has failed to file proof
of service on the defendant. The Magistrate Judge issued an order to show cause and granted
the plaintiff an additional seven days to show cause for the failure to effect service and issued
a warning that her case could be dismissed for failure to prosecute. However, the plaintiff

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. 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 the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

did not respond.
The plaintiff was also advised of her right to submit objections to the Report and
Recommendation which was filed on October 22, 2013. She did not file any objections to
the Report. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this
court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
After a careful review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this court finds the Report
is proper and it is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

November 13, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2