Thomas v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 23

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: This court declines to adopt theReport and will not dismiss Plaintiff's case at this time. Plaintiff is on notice that further failures to comply with deadlines and court orders will not be viewed as favorably by the court. This matter is re-referred to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 10/3/2016. (gnan, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Cynthia Ann Thomas,

Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-230-CMC
Plaintiff,

vs.

ORDER

Carolyn W. Colvin,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
This matter is currently before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) of Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rules 73.02(b)(2)(a) and 83.VII.02, et seq., D.S.C.
The Report, filed September 7, 2016, recommends that this case be dismissed for failure
to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). ECF No. 17. On September 26, 2016, Plaintiff
filed objections to the Report. ECF No. 22.
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). The
court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
In this case, circumstances have changed since the Magistrate Judge filed his Report.
Although Plaintiff was granted two extensions to file her brief, and failed to do to until the day
the Report was filed, she has now filed her brief (ECF No. 18). That, along with her Objections
to the Report, show that she does intend to prosecute her action. This court declines to adopt the
Report and will not dismiss Plaintiff’s case at this time. Plaintiff is on notice that further failures
to comply with deadlines and court orders will not be viewed as favorably by the court. This
matter is re-referred to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
October 3, 2016

2