Simmons v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 35

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report of the Magistrate Judge, which is incorporated herein by reference. The Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative review as set forth in the Report, [ECF No. 30]. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 10/19/2017. (gnan, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Laquita T. Simmons

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
)
Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 5:16-02893-TMC
ORDER

Plaintiff, Laquita Simmons, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking
judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”)
denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplementary Security Income
(“SSI”) pursuant to the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1). This matter is before the court for review
of the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the United States Magistrate Judge, made in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.). (ECF No. 30). The Report
recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence
four of § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Report. (ECF No. 30 at 15).
Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) “should
conduct a proper analysis of the treating physician’s opinion with regard to any limitations related
to Plaintiff’s headaches,” and then “reassess Plaintiff’s severe impairments, RFC (residual
functional capacity), and credibility” accordingly. (ECF No. 30 at 14–15). Plaintiff has not filed
any objections to the Report, and on October 11, 2017, the Commissioner filed a notice of her
intent not to file any objections to the Report. (ECF No. 32). However, Defendant does not concede

that her administrative decision denying benefits to Plaintiff was not substantially justified. (ECF
No. 32).
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination
in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In
the absence of objections, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report of the
Magistrate Judge, which is incorporated herein by reference. The Commissioner’s final decision
is REVERSED AND REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further
administrative review as set forth in the Report. (ECF No. 30).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
October 19, 2017