Gibson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 28

ORDER RULING ON 24 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 9/16/22. (arut)

6:21-cv-04052-TMC

Date Filed 09/16/22

Entry Number 28

Page 1 of 3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Anna Marie Gibson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Kilolo Kijakazi, Commissioner of )
Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________________________________)

Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-4052-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Anna Marie Gibson brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1382(c)(3),
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 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) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a), D.S.C. (ECF No.
24). In the Report, the magistrate judge recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed
and remanded, pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) for further proceedings. Id. at 9. Specifically,
the magistrate judge concluded that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) “failed to properly
explain the finding that the plaintiff can perform work at all exertional levels, and thus the court
cannot determine whether this finding, and the decision as a whole, is supported by substantial
evidence.” Id. at 8. Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended the case be returned to the
ALJ for a more thorough consideration, assessment and explanation of this issue. Id. at 9.
Furthermore, the magistrate judge recommended that the court direct the ALJ on remand to

1 

6:21-cv-04052-TMC

Date Filed 09/16/22

Entry Number 28

Page 2 of 3

consider Plaintiff’s assertion of error regarding Listing 12.05. Id. On September 16, 2022, the
Commissioner filed a notice of her intent not to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 26).
The recommendations set forth in the Report have no presumptive weight, and this court
remains responsible for making a final determination in this matter. Wimmer v. Cook, 774 F.2d
68, 72 (4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976)). The court is
charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which a specific
objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, modify, in whole or in part, the
recommendation of the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). However, the court need only review for clear error “those portions which are not
objected to—including those portions to which only ‘general and conclusory’ objections have been
made[.]” Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the Carolinas, LLC, 288 F. Supp. 3d 654, 662 (D.S.C. 2017).
“An objection is specific if it ‘enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues—factual
and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.’” Id. at 662 n.6 (quoting United States v.
One Parcel of Real Prop., With Bldgs., Appurtenances, Improvements, & Contents, Known As:
2121 E. 30th St., Tulsa, Okla., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996)). In the absence of specific
objections to the Report, the court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
magistrate judge’s 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 finds no clear error and adopts
the Report of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 24) 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 proceedings consistent with the Report’s detailed analysis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 

6:21-cv-04052-TMC

Date Filed 09/16/22

Entry Number 28

Page 3 of 3

s/ Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
September 16, 2022
Anderson, South Carolina

3