Simpkins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 21

ORDER RULING ON 16 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 03/02/2017. (egra, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Gwen Simpkins,
Plaintiff,
v.
Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 9:16-1710-TMC

ORDER

Plaintiff Gwen Simpkins (“Simpkins”) 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 her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits 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. 16). In her 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 February 28, 2017, the Commissioner filed a notice of her intent not to file any
objections to the Report. (ECF No. 17).

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.

1

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 & 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. 16) 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
United States District Judge

March 2, 2017
Anderson, South Carolina

2