Griffith v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 26

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Commissioner's decision is reversed and the Court remands this matter to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 11/18/21. (arut)

8:20-cv-02737-DCC

Date Filed 11/18/21

Entry Number 26

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Kimberly Langley Griffith,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Kilolo Kijakazi,1 Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant. )
________________________________ )

C/A No. 8:20-cv-02737-DCC

ORDER

Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review
of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her
claim for Disability Insurance Benefits. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
for pre-trial handling. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) on November 2, 2021, recommending that the Court reverse the decision of
the Commissioner and remand for further proceedings. ECF No. 23. Neither party filed
objections to the Report.2
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976).

1

Kilolo Kijakazi became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on July 9,
2021. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), she is substituted for former Commissioner
Andrew Saul as the defendant in this action.
2

The Commissioner filed a Reply to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, indicating the Social Security Administration does not intend to file any
objections. ECF No. 24.

8:20-cv-02737-DCC

Date Filed 11/18/21

Entry Number 26

Page 2 of 2

The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the
Report that have been specifically objected to, and the Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[I]n 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.’” (citation omitted)).
Upon review of the record, the applicable law, and the findings and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and ADOPTS
the Report.

Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and the Court

REMANDS this matter to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
November 18, 2021
Spartanburg, South Carolina

2