Drakeford v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
16
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 12 Report and Recommendation. The Commissioner's final decision is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) for further administrative review as set forth in the Report. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 1/23/18. (jsmi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Yvonne Drakeford,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
)
Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )
Civil Action No. 8:16-cv-03488-TMC
ORDER
Plaintiff, Yvonne Drakeford, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and
1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying her claims 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(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(a) (D.S.C.). (ECF No. 12). The Report recommends that the
Commissioner’s decision be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Report. (ECF No. 12 at 23). Specifically, the
Magistrate Judge determined that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) should reconsider the
Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia in accordance with SSR 12-2p.1 (ECF No. 12 at 23). Plaintiff has not
filed objections to the Report. On January 22, 2018, the Commissioner filed a notice of her intent
1
This finding alone is sufficient basis to remand. However, the Magistrate Judge instructed that the ALJ is also to
take into consideration (1) the Plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ failed to adequately explain his consideration of
Plaintiff’s testimony, (2) the Plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ failed to explain the weight assigned to the opinion
of Plaintiff’s treating physician, and (3) a reevaluation of Plaintiff’s credibility considering Plaintiff’s subjective
complaints as it results to Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia. (ECF No. 12 at 23).
not to file any objections to the Report. (ECF No. 14). However, Defendant does not concede
that her administrative decision denying benefits to Plaintiff was not substantially justified. (ECF
No. 14).
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, 27071 (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 & Accident 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 (ECF No. 12), 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
January 23, 2018
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?