Bess v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
ORDER RULING ON 27 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: 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. Signed by the Honorable Timothy M. Cain on 11/14/2017. (gnan )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Civil Action No. 5:16-03134-TMC
Plaintiff, Juanita Bess, 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 her
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. 27). 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. 27). Specifically,
the Magistrate Judge determined that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) should reconsider
Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), particularly in regards to Plaintiff’s “limitations
in concentration, persistence, or pace as to her ability to stay on task” and in regards to Plaintiff’s
visual acuity. (ECF No. 27 at 14–16). Because additional review is needed in those areas, the
magistrate judge stated that the ALJ should then “revisit Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and [the
ALJ’s] credibility determination.” (ECF No. 27 at 20). Plaintiff has not filed objections to the
Report. On November 14, 2017, the Commissioner filed a notice of her intent not to file any
objections to the Report. (ECF No. 29). However, Defendant does not concede that her
administrative decision denying benefits to Plaintiff was not substantially justified. (ECF No. 29).
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. 27).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
November 14, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?