Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 15

ORDER RULING ON 11 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 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. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 03/24/2017. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION

Kenneth Jackson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 9:16-1560-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Kenneth Jackson (“Jackson”) brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”)1 denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental
Security Income under the Social Security Act. 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 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.). (ECF No. 11). In his
Report, the magistrate judge recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be reversed and
remanded pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the
Report. Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report, and on March 22, 2017, the
Commissioner filed a notice of her intent not to file any objections to the Report. (ECF No. 12).
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

1

Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on
January 27, 2017. Pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. P. 25(d), Berryhill should be substituted for Carolyn
W. Colvin as the defendant in this action. 

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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court adopts the Report of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 11) which is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, 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
United States District Judge

March 24, 2017
Anderson, South Carolina

2