Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (ECF No. 14), REVERSING the Commissioners final decision pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and REMANDING the case back to the Commissioner for further administrative action consistent with the Report. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/18/22.(arut)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Candies A. Williams,

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

Civil Action No. 8:22-cv-00129-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Candies A. Williams 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 supplemental security income (“SSI”). (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. 14). The Report recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed
and remanded for further administrative action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Id. at 1, 31. Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report were due on November 17, 2022. To
date, neither party has filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination
in this matter remains with this court. See Wimmer v. Cook, 774 F.2d 68, 72 (4th Cir. 1985)
(quoting 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. 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)). 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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee’s
note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s
waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s judgment based upon that recommendation. See
Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017).
After a thorough and careful review of the record under the appropriate standards as set
forth above, the court adopts the Report of the magistrate judge (ECF No. 14), which is
incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, the Commissioner’s final decision is REVERSED
pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and the case is REMANDED back to the
Commissioner for further administrative action consistent with the Report, which is incorporated
herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina
November 18, 2022