Clemons v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 23 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 7/14/21. (alew, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kilolo Kijakazi, 1
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-2686-TMC
Plaintiff Dawn Clemons 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 and supplemental security income benefits under Titles II
and XVI of 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(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.). (ECF No.
23). 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. Id. at 10. Plaintiff,
who is represented by counsel, has not filed objections to the Report. On July 14, 2021, the
Commissioner filed a notice of intent not to file any objections to the Report. (ECF No. 24).
The magistrate judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility
for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. Wimmer v. Cook,
Kilolo Kijakazi became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on July 9, 2021. Pursuant
to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Kilolo Kijakazi should be substituted,
therefore, for Andrew Saul as the defendant in this suit.
774 F.2d 68, 72 (4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976)).
Nevertheless, “[t]he district court is only required to review de novo those portions of the report to
which specific objections have been made, and need not conduct de novo review ‘when a party
makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.’” Farmer v. McBride, 177 Fed.
App’x 327, 330–31 (4th Cir. April 26, 2006) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th
Cir. 1982)). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation
made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is
not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Greenspan v. Brothers
Prop. Corp., 103 F. Supp. 3d 734, 737 (D.S.C. 2015) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–
200 (4th Cir. 1983)).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 23), 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. 23).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
July 14, 2021
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?